trump blames low-income people, minorities for 'ruining' suburbia

Bill said:
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump refused to condemn white supremacists.
Click to expand...

LIE and LAME. He has condemned them at least four or five times in public. Why do you triggered, mouth breathing mental cases on the left have to constantly lie?

Bill said:
On Wednesday, he appeared to blame suburban, low-income people of color for “ruining this American dream.”
Click to expand...

That's not what your clip shows you triggered, mouth breathing mental case. Why all the lies?

Joe Biden: Unlike Black Americans, Latinos have diversity of thought
 
PostmodernProphet said:
both you and cawhacko are ignoring the voucher system which helps low income people have an equal shot at available housing..........section 8 will not solve California's problem because there isn't enough housing for people who HAVE money......
Click to expand...

?? How are we ignoring it???

There is housing, just not in the places were it is needed.. A constant thorn in cowakco's side..

What do you see as the solution??

Where I live, about 90 miles from cowacko there is lots of new houses & some section 8..
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Bill,



OP link:

"I hear I'm not doing well in the suburbs."

Of course it's all about HIM.

Well, I don't think race-baiting is going to help.
Click to expand...

lol, sad & true....

Sadly he thinks empathy is a type of baked or fried turnover consisting of pastry and filling....:palm:
 
cawacko said:
Forget I said Section 8. I was just being honest in saying that if I lived in some fancy multi-million dollar home in the suburbs I wouldn't probably wouldn't be thrilled if a low income apartment complex was built next door. However that's almost a straw man to a point. NIMBYs don't say we'd accept the development of duplexes, triplexes or multi-family along transits routes in our cities but simply don't want low income housing. No. NIMBYs fight almost all new development. That's the issue. Low income people are not buying, or renting, duplexes or triplexes or living in fancy new apartments. The occupants of the units may not be at the same income level as the single family homeowners but they aren't low income either. Yet NIMBYs fight to keep them out.
Click to expand...

That is what I have found here as well....... Those in the section 8 (which are nice places, well maintained etc) are not like "the projects", @ least here.. & most are working poor, younger adults & recent immigrants..

nimby arguments aside, there is an obvious inherent problem trying to build such units in expensive areas.

Example:

for 10 million you could have 10 units(?) in SF........ Perhaps 25 units for that in Pittsburgh & 30 in Isleton out in the middle of no where..

If they built even 10,000 units in SF, would that even put a dent on the need??

Is it really a need or just a want??

I would imagine most want to live there as they are close to work &/or family.......

If they can't be paid enough to live there, why should taxpayers pay for them to live there??

What is the benefit to society??

Certainly benefit to them & their employer..
 
Sirthinksalot said:
What does the data say about correlation between poverty and crime? Aren't you lefties always blaming poverty for why people commit crimes? It's interesting how liberals pick and choose when to "follow the science". :thinking:
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me what it says??

Don't be lazy & make your presentation............:cool:
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
That is what I have found here as well....... Those in the section 8 (which are nice places, well maintained etc) are not like "the projects", @ least here.. & most are working poor, younger adults & recent immigrants..

nimby arguments aside, there is an obvious inherent problem trying to build such units in expensive areas.

Example:

for 10 million you could have 10 units(?) in SF........ Perhaps 25 units for that in Pittsburgh & 30 in Isleton out in the middle of no where..

If they built even 10,000 units in SF, would that even put a dent on the need??

Is it really a need or just a want??

I would imagine most want to live there as they are close to work &/or family.......

If they can't be paid enough to live there, why should taxpayers pay for them to live there??

What is the benefit to society??

Certainly benefit to them & their employer..
Click to expand...

They're multiple factors at play here (we'll stick with the Bay Area since we're both familiar with it). San Francisco and Oakland don't build enough housing. At the same it shouldn't be incumbent upon those two cities to be the only one building housing. Very little housing gets built in Bay Area suburbs. So that just exacerbates the problem.

And with all the talk of climate change you can't disassociate housing from climate change. Higher density housing next to/near public transportation in urban areas near jobs gets people out of their cars and is good for the environment. The alternative is what we see today, people move further and further out to find affordable housing. You have large numbers of people living as far as Tracey and Stockton regularly commuting into the Bay Area for work.

The Bay Area is never going to be "affordable" by any stretch of the imagination. But by allowing such a restriction on the supply of housing it's making an already bad situation almost untenable. Thus 10K new housing units alone won't fundamentally change the pricing dynamics of the area but it will move the needle in a positive way (assuming one believes more affordable is positive)
 
Bill said:
Where I live, about 90 miles from cowacko there is lots of new houses & some section 8..
Click to expand...
well what the fuck is wrong with those people who refuse to commute 90 miles.......

There is housing, just not in the places were it is needed
Click to expand...

dude, if the housing isn't where its needed THERE ISN'T ENOUGH HOUSING WHERE IT'S NEEDED........I hate having to shout, but that's the second time today people have been so stupid that they ignored the obvious........
 
Bill said:
Why are you asking me what it says??

Don't be lazy & make your presentation............:cool:
Click to expand...

The Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research group, has published a study that demonstrates, through empirical data, what many have long suspected: That extreme poverty leads to increased crime rates.
Click to expand...

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/new...t-connection-between-poverty-and-crime-rates/

Again... Why do you lefties pick and choose when to follow the science?
 
cawacko said:
They're multiple factors at play here (we'll stick with the Bay Area since we're both familiar with it). San Francisco and Oakland don't build enough housing. At the same it shouldn't be incumbent upon those two cities to be the only one building housing. Very little housing gets built in Bay Area suburbs. So that just exacerbates the problem.

And with all the talk of climate change you can't disassociate housing from climate change. Higher density housing next to/near public transportation in urban areas near jobs gets people out of their cars and is good for the environment. The alternative is what we see today, people move further and further out to find affordable housing. You have large numbers of people living as far as Tracey and Stockton regularly commuting into the Bay Area for work.

The Bay Area is never going to be "affordable" by any stretch of the imagination. But by allowing such a restriction on the supply of housing it's making an already bad situation almost untenable. Thus 10K new housing units alone won't fundamentally change the pricing dynamics of the area but it will move the needle in a positive way (assuming one believes more affordable is positive)
Click to expand...

I have neighbors, several actually, that commute to the bay......

While it is distasteful, there is imminent domain.. Just like they build highways through town... Would be years in the courts, but if you are adamant about that, that would work.......

A huge earthquake will make ppl think twice about moving or staying there..

ON the brighter side more ppl working @ home seems to be providing some relief??
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well what the fuck is wrong with those people who refuse to commute 90 miles.......



dude, if the housing isn't where its needed THERE ISN'T ENOUGH HOUSING WHERE IT'S NEEDED........I hate having to shout, but that's the second time today people have been so stupid that they ignored the obvious........
Click to expand...

Thanks for shouting out the obvious...........:rolleyes:

You obviously have no solutions either.......

Just bitching, something @ which you're well versed .........
 
The fake president and lawlessly hacked in Putin puppet tRump continues to be a liar, fool, maniac and a real sicko. This is considering tRump as the spoiled fake president was allowed to add over $3 trillion to the debt at looting taxpayer money for himself and his rich cronies that punched all taxpayers in the eye, especially in in the suburbs. This is considering suburbia is not all so-called white flight anymore but has become diversified and generally does not discriminate when it comes to money talks and bullsh!t walks. Also tRump's coronavirus that tyrant and his sold out republicans conspired to murder over 200,000 Americans and infect 7 million more with the grief, economic strife and hardships has also affected suburbia and tRump and his goons threat to destroy Social Security, Medicare and other taxpayer earned and paid for safety nets affects suburbia too in a drastic way, etc. The 45 freak on steroids is not even a good liar anymore at being predictable and obvious.
 
Bill said:
I have neighbors, several actually, that commute to the bay......

While it is distasteful, there is imminent domain.. Just like they build highways through town... Would be years in the courts, but if you are adamant about that, that would work.......

A huge earthquake will make ppl think twice about moving or staying there..

ON the brighter side more ppl working @ home seems to be providing some relief??
Click to expand...

Actually we're losing population now. People are willing to live in 600 sq.ft. shoe boxes because of all that big cities have to offer. You shut that down now all of a sudden it's not nearly as enticing. I would suspect in a couple of years the population will have returned but with many of the big firms are saying they are WFH until at least next summer a number of people have left which of course has big economic implications.
 
cawacko said:
Actually we're losing population now. People are willing to live in 600 sq.ft. shoe boxes because of all that big cities have to offer. You shut that down now all of a sudden it's not nearly as enticing. I would suspect in a couple of years the population will have returned but with many of the big firms are saying they are WFH until at least next summer a number of people have left which of course has big economic implications.
Click to expand...
Losing population~population relief is a good thing but they will soon be replaced..

Ppl from other places seeing 600ft box in the bay as a step up.

Many fleeing China, & specifically hong kong love them some SF, & other maybe Vancouver will be a top destination.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top