The proposal, which needs congressional approval, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to scale back the social safety net, under the belief that charging more for rent will prompt those receiving federal assistance to enter the workforce and earn more income. “It’s our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty,” Carson said in a recent interview with Fox News.


https://www.apnews.com/d084d718ddda4fe087219825bad0fcbd/Analysis:-HUD-plan-would-raise-rents-for-poor-by-20-percent

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — Housing Secretary Ben Carson says his latest proposal to raise rents would mean a path toward self-sufficiency for millions of low-income households across the United States by pushing more people to find work. For Ebony Morris and her four small children, it could mean homelessness.

Morris lives in Charleston, South Carolina, where most households receiving federal housing assistance would see their rent go up an average 26 percent, according to an analysis done by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and provided exclusively to The Associated Press. But her increase would be nearly double that.

Overall, the analysis shows that in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, low-income tenants — many of whom have jobs — would have to pay roughly 20 percent more each year for rent under the plan. That rent increase is about six times greater than the growth in average hourly earnings, putting the poorest workers at an increased risk of homelessness because wages simply haven’t kept pace with housing expenses.

“I saw public housing as an option to get on my feet, to pay 30 percent of my income and get myself out of debt and eventually become a homeowner,” said Morris, whose monthly rent would jump from $403 to $600. “But this would put us in a homeless state.”

Roughly 4 million low-income households receiving HUD assistance would be affected by the proposal. HUD estimates that about 2 million would be affected immediately, while the other 2 million would see rent increases phased in after six years.

The proposal, which needs congressional approval, is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to scale back the social safety net, under the belief that charging more for rent will prompt those receiving federal assistance to enter the workforce and earn more income. “It’s our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty,” Carson said in a recent interview with Fox News.

The analysis shows that families would be disproportionately impacted. Of the 8.3 million people affected by the proposal, more than 3 million are children.

That stands in stark contrast to Carson’s focus on children and education, which is woven into his memoirs and embedded in the very foundation of his namesake reading rooms tucked into elementary schools across the country. It also runs contrary to research, housing experts say.

“There’s no evidence that raising rents causes people to work more,” said Will Fischer, a senior policy analyst at the policy center, which advocates for the poor. “For most of these rent increases, I don’t think there’s even a plausible theory for why they would encourage work.”

One rainy spring morning Morris tried to wrangle her rowdy children into a minivan as they chased each other in a circle in the yard, a small patch of grass in front of the low-slung red brick house she rents in a housing complex. She’d taken a rare day off work so she could attend a school orientation.

Morris moved to Charleston three years ago from Summerville, South Carolina, to go to school. She’s since earned her associate’s degree in health science. She’s a full-time pediatric assistant, sometimes working 50 hours a week just to get by. Her children, ages 3, 4, 7 and 10, would be hit hardest by the rent increase, she said.

“Food, electricity bills, school uniforms,” she said. “Internet for homework assignments and report cards. All of their reading modules at school require the internet, without it they’ll be behind their classmates. The kids are in extracurriculars, those would be scrapped. I would struggle just to pay my bills. It would be very, very, very hard.”

The impact of the rent proposal would affect low-income residents and families everywhere.

Rent for the poorest tenants in Baltimore, where Carson made history as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital and where his own story of overcoming poverty inspired generations of children to dream of possibilities beyond the projects, could go up by 19 percent or $800 a year. In Detroit, where Carson’s mother, a single parent, raised him by working two jobs, low-income families could see their rents increase by $710, or 21 percent. Households in Washington, D.C., one of the richest regions in the country, would see the largest increases for its poorest residents: $980 per year on average, a 20 percent jump.

“This proposal to raise rents on low-income people doesn’t magically create well-paying jobs needed to lift people out of poverty,” said Diane Yentel, CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. “Instead it just makes it harder for struggling families to get ahead by potentially cutting them off from the very stability that makes it possible for them to find and keep jobs.”

The “Make Affordable Housing Work Act,” announced on April 25, would allow housing authorities to impose work requirements, would increase the percentage of income poor tenants are required to pay from 30 percent to 35 percent, and would raise the minimum rent from $50 to $150 per month. The proposal would eliminate deductions, for medical care and child care, and for each child in a home. Currently, a household can deduct from its gross income $480 per child, significantly lowering rent for families.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development says elderly or disabled households would be exempt from the changes, but an estimated 314,000 households stand to lose their elderly or disabled status and see their rents go up, according to the outside analysis.

Donald Cameron, president and CEO of the Charleston Housing Authority, said HUD’s proposed rent increases would be “catastrophic” for the city and metropolitan area.

“We’d lose a lot of people within a very short time: the ones with the smallest pocket books, the least discretionary income,” he said. “What do they do? If you take away that safety net, they’re in free fall. Where do they go?”

Charleston, with its winding cobblestone walks, sweeping river views and live oaks draped with Spanish moss, is a case study in economic disparity. The city is booming, drawing millions of tourists each year. Boeing opened a propulsion plant in North Charleston in 2015 and Mercedes Benz a factory to build Sprinter vans, bringing with it the promise of more than 1,000 jobs.

But housing prices are going up faster than wages, creating a widespread crisis for low- and middle-income families there.

Unlike many cities, Charleston’s public housing stock was built entirely for families, which is why increases here would disproportionately affect parents and their children. Roughly 55 percent of households in the city’s public housing are headed by single mothers, according to the data.

Cameron said the affordable housing shortage is so extreme that nearly half of Charleston voucher holders are forced to find housing next door in North Charleston. But that city is facing its own housing related emergency. According to data collected by Princeton University’s Eviction Lab, North Charleston’s eviction rate ranks significantly higher than other cities the program has tracked.

Not all residents receiving housing assistance think HUD’s proposal is unfair.

Shalonda Skinner, 29, has five children under the age of 11, and pays just $9 to rent a flat two blocks from Morris. She’s lived there six years, and styles hair on the side to earn about $160 each month. She supplements her needs with food stamps, and intermittent payments from her children’s father. If the rent were to go up she says, “I’d work more,” taking more clients and asking her family to watch her children.

“I’m in favor of it,” she said of Carson’s policy. “Housing helps a lot of people. It will probably put a good amount of people out because some people don’t like to work, they’re not independent. But it’s fair.”

The data analysis was conducted using 2016 HUD data and includes tenants living in public housing complexes and receiving vouchers to rent apartments on the private market. It excludes housing authorities participating in the Moving to Work program, which allows districts to determine their own rent policies.

Melissa Maddox Evans, general counsel for the Charleston Housing Authority, said she believes the proposal is based on a faulty premise — that most tenants in public housing don’t have jobs and that rent increases will incentivize work.

“There’s an assumption that many of the participants are not employed when they are,” said Maddox Evans. “Most tenants here work two or three jobs. When they are going out and finding work, are they going to make enough to accommodate that increase?”

In areas of concentrated poverty, low-wage jobs are often the only option, particularly for those without access to a car or public transportation.

Shannon Brown, 29, recently had to leave her full-time job providing child care in North Charleston so she could pick up her daughter from the local Head Start program each afternoon. She was earning about $450 a month and paying $157 for rent.

She’s trying to find a job closer to home, to balance work and caring for her child on her own. She stayed in a shelter before moving into public housing, and worries that a rent increase could put her back there.

“I’m trying to get out of poverty,” she said, “but it’s already hard.”

Afrika Frasier had a steady job, as a manager at a Church’s Chicken restaurant down the street from the unit she shares with her husband and four children. She was making $1,200 each month and paying $300 in rent. But a few weeks ago, her boss called to tell her not to come in, that the restaurant was closing for good.

“We’re trying to get the hell out of here, but minimum wage is a big, big problem,” Frasier said. She’s since found another job, as an assistant manager at the local Family Dollar. But she worries about the viability of her opportunities in the area, and said she’s planning to move to Georgia as soon as she can.

“You can go to school, get an education and the job you’re going to get is still going to give you $10 an hour even though we’re the ones cleaning your dishes, cooking your food. Where are we supposed to live?”

Morris doesn’t have an answer. If she’s priced out of public housing, she doesn’t know where she’ll go or what she’ll do.

“I work every day and I’m trying my hardest,” she said. “My main focus is to make sure my children are educated and to break this cycle. But taking away resources for moms? I never thought I’d be in a situation like this.”

would it be foul to put hands on him?

I really want to put hands on that dude.

its still kinda mind boggling how much the gop is allowed to craft policy based strictly off ideology with absolutely no evidence/data to back up what they claim the outcome will be. in fact...the evidence/data in most cases firmly points in the opposite direction. hardly any pushback from the press or even a good faith request to provide any information to back up their claims.

just watched an old video where Obama skirted the question regarding gun policy failures in his home city:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg

American politics is RIFE with examples of people sticking to their ideological points even amidst evidence. How is this mind boggling?

But since dude said something was "mind boggling" about a subject and specifically made reference to a party ideology, I simply illustrated how a 'different' partisan issue that has led nowhere with current legislation was just as asinine. If he thinks about how the other group on the other side of the aisle could continue to do something and push a poor idea despite clear evidence that the idea doesn't work, maybe better understanding of the Republican actions would be clearer. Once you have clear understanding, maybe then effective tactics to combat the policy can surface.

...or maybe his statements were just posturing. *shrugs*

how about data from entire states like ny and connecticut who enacted tougher gun laws and drove their gun death rates down into bottom 5 states in country (despite having major metro areas)?
https://www.gq.com/story/connecticut-forward-gun-laws

the 8 states with the lowest rate of gun deaths in the country are all blue states with democratic gun policies. meanwhile 14 of the top 15 rates of gun death reside in red states with republican (lack of) gun laws.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/

even illinois (where chicago is located) is ranked lower than almost 30 red states lmao.

how about data from entire *countries* with tougher gun laws like uk, germany, australia, israel, etc (basically every other country in the industrialized western world)?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

why does your 'clear evidence' only revolve around the 1 city racist republicans love to bring up in their recurring episodes of whataboutism?

Another thing "other countries" don't have besides gun violence...fat people at epidemic levels. Now tell me what'd happen if we were expected to simply solve the obesity epidemic by adopting portion standards of the UK, Germany or Israel? What works positively for other countries may or may not work here. I came back from Cuba last year thinking we should embargo ourselves. Certainly we could save some lives that way, right? *shrugs*

I think we can all agree that the "war on drugs" has been a failure in MANY regards, and yet the laws regarding them are still in effect and massive resources are directed that way even now. The idea that stricter DRUG laws is gonna make the problem disappear or lower and not cause the problems we see in even just the black community is unintelligent at best, and yet people keep kicking that can down the road Dems and Republicans alike.

So answer me this, with very tough DRUG laws that we've seen 1) not work nationally because we are the highest using country on the planet, and 2) people selling, buying, having access to illegal drugs despite the laws (shit, most of our favorite artists dealt and WE buy)... then why do we still have these laws? Will having 'more and tougher' DRUG laws eliminate usage?

The correlation i'm making is meant to point to the fact that red state or blue, people still break laws and negative ramifications come about. This is why Chicago is singled out.

when your argument on the one specific issue we are debating has consistently been refuted?

you got a buncha different side issues going on in your reply and *still* tried to tie it all back to chicago lol (why are you so hyper-focused on this one specific city?).

you originally claimed dems are just as guilty as repubs of formulating policy based on ideology 'amidst evidence'. you used your belief in the alleged failure of democratic gun law proposals as a basis for your stance (along with a random youtube clip lol).

i provided evidence. you continue to provide ideology.

and now youre just branching out into other issues and repeating the same approach.

you can see the irony in all this right?

To your other point below i tend not to offer studies because i usually see people battling "their studies" against "someone else's studies" and it gets nowhere.

Here's a good 6 minute video laying it all out. i offer this because this dude was an anti-gun dude who has ALLLLL the conversations with people on both sides and seems reasonable to even my anti-gun peoples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGYn22iMLyY&index=12&list=PL30O4UPS4tjQOF5d6frz78M3pqvQmjhsd

The very last line he says is most important which echos the very ideas in this Harvard study of the US vs Industrialzed world when it comes to violence:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic
and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable
rate of homicide in most European nations."

im tryna work with you fam but cmon lol.

he was anti-gun like candace owens was anti-trump. then both of them realized how lucrative it is being black billboards to sell right wing ideology to gullible conservative voters.

all of this is starting to make sense now.

and THEN look at what's being said. because you just replied about the PERSON and your preconceptions and not the ideas.

aside from a slant that he's an NRA shill, in earlier videos he talks about being scared of firearms, not interested until he actually shot for the first time and continued for fun. his political ideology could have yes, grown out of bias for his hobby or could have been methodically built up through thought. either way, you're better than just saying "colion noir, gtfo!"

just a thought.

>aside from a slant that he's an NRA shill,

there is no slant. hes literally an nra shill lol. he is on the payroll of the nra. paid to host content on nra outlets and say pro-nra shit. (and loves to focus on chicago just like you lol)

>in earlier videos
>he talks about being scared of firearms, not interested until
>he actually shot for the first time and continued for fun. his
>political ideology could have yes, grown out of bias for his
>hobby or could have been methodically built up through
>thought. either way, you're better than just saying "colion
>noir, gtfo!"
>
>just a thought.

and you completely believe his backstory and 'transition' simply because he said it. which is exactly why he gets paid to push an agenda to people like you lol.

you do realize that right wing propaganda shops like the nra and fox news essentially hire these paid actors because they know their audiences are gullible right? people like colion noir, dana loesch, tomi lahren, candace owens, etc...

and they *all* just happen to have the same backstory where they were supposedly liberals against conservative policies then somehow saw the light (and got paid well for it).

https://www.complex.com/life/2017/01/tomi-lahren-liberal-past-exposed-old-tv-footage
https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2018/02/nra-dana-loesch-wanted-to-star-in-hot-young-mom-sitcom
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-newest-star-of-the-trump-movement-ran-a-trump-bashing
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/17/17247314/conservative-pundit-reality-tv-tomi-lahren-ann-coulter

you should seriously start asking yourself if/why you are the type of person that consistently falls for the same recycled formula that these folks have successfully employed time and time again.

damn

cuz i got those too.

nevertheless, the ideas still stand. i know this tactic tho... just scoff at a person because you peep their credentials, find something you don't like, and disregard. gotcha.

maybe you weren't here when we talked about him but to see his name and video being used sets off alarms.

its like you are using the conservative playbook from 2017. We seen these plays before bruh

Do better.

where are those guns in chicago coming from (and circumventing the gun laws)?
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html

the evidence on gun safety/control has been pretty clear in this country and worldwide (and why the nra was fought so hard against studying it and accumulating that evidence at the state/federal/university level). ;)

why zero in on chicago (the right wings favorite racist dog whistle trope), a metro in a blue state surrounded by 4 red states with lax gun laws that make it easier for those guns to flood into the city?

why not bring up nyc, a metro in a blue state surrounded by states with more sensible/stringent gun laws than the states surrounding illinois, whose tough gun laws have brought homicides and crime down to their lowest rates since world war ii?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-city-records-fewest-murders-lowest-crime-rate/story?id=52166562

so you're saying the solution is to have blue states surrounded by blue states? that's the final solution?

cuz last i checked...there are a lotta red states surrounded by other red states (like Texas).

curious.

or hope that uninformed poor stupid people "get what they deserve" ?

tell me the TOKPR and i'll rock wit dat.

and yes

I actually agree, but Carson prolly got that "old man civil rights strength". I'm not tryin' to see that.

to completely formulate your perspective on gun laws? lol.

I'm a gun owner living in Atlanta, part of a few firearms organizations, and have spoken about these issues a LOT already.

What was interesting was seeing Obama dance around the question (as all politicians tend to do when put the fire). I really just wanted to see what a person's reaction/justification would be if someone on the "their" side (i honestly don't know your politics) stuck to their guns and supported (as Obama did) his own policy despite good evidence that it didn't work.

any evidence from anyone/anything not named utamaroho?

since your whole stance in this debate was allegedly based on 'examples of people sticking to their ideological points even amidst evidence' (c) you.

?

It seems like there is a disconnect. Maybe we're talking about two different things here. What claims do you want me to back up? If I can, I will.

"lax gun laws that make it easier for those guns to flood into the city?"

the use of the word "flood" seems to connote the actions to an actual "flood" wherein something happening that is otherwise unstoppable like any other natural disaster that people are subject to dealing with helplessly.

In the case of firearms...people either go GET THEM, which screams that the laws they are aware of aren't important enough to follow...hence the issue at hand. It's not like firearms themselves are getting up and walking across state lines; moreso people see the law and just say "fuck it". I know people part of gun organizations in NY that carry illegally DESPITE the law simply because it's smart to do so. *shrugs*

if the laws aren't getting the intended goal accomplished, why keep pushing them?

(other than a youtube video of an old townhall you just came across lol).

no links, no studies, no nothing.

despite various points of data i have posted countering your narrative.

but youre still arguing along ideological lines.

thanks for proving my point for me lol.

'i just came across this youtube video' is pretty much the right wing approach to education on the issues now lol.

Reeq plainly said, gun laws work when everyone is working to make smart laws for them, hence NYC's declining violent/gun crimes rate given it's surrounding states enforcing similar policies.

As opposed to a place like IL which is surrounded by places that don't have the same type of policies. So people who want access to the guns with little restriction can go to any bordering state and cop.

If they had to jump through more hoops, it'd be harder to get them and thus would drive down the occurences of gun violence.

Cause then effect.

You keep saying "well if the policy doesn't work...". When he's pointed to it working. If the bordering red states instituted more restrictions than just 'show up to a gun show and get as many as you want' the poor gang running kids on the southside of Chicago wouldn't be able to go cop from a local arms dealer as easily to commit whimsical murder based on drug and turf war or in some instances, stupid rap beef.

You can't have an argument like "well people still do it" as a reason not to have a law/policy. If that's the case, lets get rid of murder charges or speeding tickets.

Case in point, do you think we'd have more or less car accidents if there were no speed limits or speed limits with a wide variety of interpretation (you can drive between 65-175 on this road)?

Don't let your R-Card prevent you from being intellectually honest.

but to your point, 10 out of 10 niggas on here will argue that the drug war was a TOTAL loss. From the fact that there are STILL illegal drugs coming across borders, to meth being made in rural America, and your local weed dealer growing his own.

There are LAWS against these things and yet people defy those laws to find a way to do things that again are 1) against the law 2) haven't been in the least bit slowed down 3) problematic for the sellers and users 4) disproportionately negatively affecting the black community.

...and yet 10 out of 10 okps shout "legalize it all" as we "illegally" buy weed and such while those laws are on the books simply because we disagree with them. the same doesn't happen for guns? whether or not people get the shit from the next state over or we watch another cartel bust with crates of firearms cross the border, shit is still gonna flow like cocaine outta Colombia.

How does one stay intellectual genuine riding for some gun laws while asking for the repeal of drug laws that were just as ineffective, and for the same reasons?

why not just lump in *all* laws with each other?

why not just say if 1 fails then they all have failed?

children still die in accidents while sitting in car seats. car seat laws have clearly failed. how can we argue against the war on drugs but still support car seats?

>How does one stay intellectual genuine riding for some gun
>laws while asking for the repeal of drug laws that were just
>as ineffective, and for the same reasons?

seriously what did you think you were doing here?

and trying to equate the negative consequences of not following a law from things that are accidental...to criminal behavior.

and you have yet to deal with the idea. why so many people can rally for ineffective drug laws being dropped, when we see all over the place gun laws not working very well. if i'm not mistaken...there are more gun laws now overall, and more sensationalized killings happening. am i right?

in the Colion video he speaks about why and why people knee jerk to gun laws being solutions to a problem that largely didn't exist in the way it does now, DESPITE the higher numbers of gun laws and gun free zones, etc.

>and you have yet to deal with the idea. why so many people
>can rally for ineffective drug laws being dropped, when we see
>all over the place gun laws not working very well. if i'm not
>mistaken...there are more gun laws now overall, and more
>sensationalized killings happening. am i right?

The differences between gun laws and drug laws are these:

-Drugs aren't designed for the sole purpose of murdering other people/animals
-Drug addiction treatment is a job growth opportunity which can be designed to help people kick the habit
-Effective legalized laws can also promote non-usage (think - the "Truth" Anti-Cigarette campaign)
-The war on drugs has grossly contributed to the prison industrial complex which has greatly diminished American society (especially minority societies, which truth be told, the new HUD policy is designed to make poor people turn to crime so they can get in the system which equates to more $$$ for investors in the privatized prison systems)
-Drugs can be managed akin to alcohol. Another substance that if used in moderation isn't particularly harmful.

-Guns are designed to kill people and those that use them for the most part are doing it for malice, protection or sport...but all 3 reasons lead to people/animals dying.
-There's no effective campaign against irresponsible gun use that would work. People aren't buying guns to get high.
-Having lax gun laws doesn't lead to safer streets. Most people aren't focused enough to pay complete attention while driving 1-2 ton vehicles so having more people with the power to squeeze a trigger and kill someone likely won't wield positive results.
-You can't 'treat' rampant murder at a clinic.

>in the Colion video he speaks about why and why people knee
>jerk to gun laws being solutions to a problem that largely
>didn't exist in the way it does now, DESPITE the higher
>numbers of gun laws and gun free zones, etc.

Society isn't linear, things change, new tech is developed, culture and attitudes change. America has too much readily access to extreme gun fire and a complete lack of legal nuance when it comes to these things. Playing with your logic is dangerous. If stat quo was always maintained, Black people would still be slaves.

but I know it won't

Because in their mind, some poor black person is getting it worse.

not just the ability to control the minority.

but the ability to control the majority by weaponizing the desire to control the minority.

republican policies have made life worse for republican voters since forever. its why republicans always end up hating the people they voted for (only 1 in the last 5 repub presidents left office beloved by the party rank and file). but they dont smarten up and vote for another party. they just vote for a different republican (who embraces the same policies lol).

When I think "Trump voter" I picture poor white trash.

I think its mostly middle class and working poor

calm down.

I could post about a black women in Atlanta revolutionizing housing in low income communities in a similar way with VERY effective strategies to solve said problem, but i'd get dogpiled because it's harsh. effective but harsh.

I came back all excited like "damn. These folks are really into some HUD".
Skimmed the replies with a frown on my face


>
>I could post about a black women in Atlanta revolutionizing
>housing in low income communities in a similar way with VERY
>effective strategies to solve said problem, but i'd get
>dogpiled because it's harsh. effective but harsh.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/8/reinventing-public-housing/

http://www.integral-online.com/Public/Docs/Dossiers/Hope%20Boldon_Bio2017.pdf

Now THIS woman, part of the organization listed above got me and wifey into a nice ling convo that ranged from conservative views of Carribean/African culture and how it could help African
Americans, to specific examples of people and communities we BOTH know that have ideology and culture that honestly more align with conservative "Repubulican" ideas than than Democratic.

I hate turning it to politics but since that's usually the trajectory, suffice it to say, many of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality espoused by the right (albeit disingenuously) is echoed in many of the immigrant families and communities that come from the African diaspora. the stories of West Indians and the sacrifice to live and do shit to better their children would/should be models for us here in the states it didn't fly in the face of a larger agenda we've seemed to have adopted from a party that I think many people are starting to find more fault with, at least vocally. And before yall say this some Republican MAGA shit. It aint. Sometimes the last thing i think black folk in America wanna do is take a page from brothers and sistas that HAVE solutions like the woman above, especially if it screams against the way things have always operated.

the comment section lets me know that site is one of THOSE sites

don't know if it's from internet burnout, or disinterest, or seeing that you could be wrong about a subject, but here's some advice:

If you react to something you read by immediately looking up who wrote it, where it was written, and what the hive mind opinion is about said matter is, you're prolly gonna get swept along in a direction that might not be fruitful. It's smart to have context, but the kneejerk reaction to something is just not that intelligent. I get why people do this, but damn.

ESPECIALLY if in convo with someone who disagrees with you but genuinely wants to exchange ideas.

>If you react to something you read by immediately looking up
>who wrote it, where it was written

yeah theres kinda a good reason why that type of information is important.

reason why i mentioned above why i don't like playing the "statistics game" by citing stuff from both our sides.

because the convo with the woman whose bio i listed is something you don't have access to, i decided to share what i could find of her work. work that you ain't even BEGIN to address or comment on. don't know why that wasn't your first stop, but whatevs.

are from outlets owned by right wing organizations that have direct vested interests in spreading an ideological agenda. well-known propaganda mills that dont even hide their agenda.

one is an extremist lobbying organization and the other is a religious cult.

not slightly biased or leaning. but full-on yellow journalism with the sole purpose of influencing opinion and driving a compliant narrative.

you dont see any problem with that? serious question.

I been there before tho..

just trying to get shit popping and playing devils advocate only to find out you are linking to a propaganda site

the comment section gives it away every time.

the moonies (unification church).
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_Times

these are the same nutcases who made news earlier this year with the mass ceremony of people getting married with their ar-15s lol.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/us/pennsylvania-church-ar-15-ceremony-trnd/index.html

god this is all making so much more sense now lol.

at least it would be the same topic and we could debate if harsh laws are effective

but this shit you doing right now.. not cool

how in the program they stayed on the kids asses academically, made sure they were in programs and forced them to go, not allow men who thought they might live off the women in the housing out. basically creating the environment where many of the things you see in the typical projects don't even BEGIN to happen. and enforcing that type of tough love. my wife, who's as liberal as any liberal could be then turned the convo to the fact that she'd seen this with sorors who are west indian alog with my observations of immigrants parents from the diaspora, who almost across the board from the stories of their well educated second generation childrens' successes have less than positive views of the hood and the culture therein.

i live in Atlanta and frequent Clarkston where a LARGE immigrant population is, one of the largest in the US and get into these convos all the time with honest as fuck people. the conservative leanings i hear everyday would make your head spin. in fact, this whole post will be a spark for discussion later on and i'll get back at you, but i'm reading this post and thinking "nah, jacking prices won't work" but i KNOW the seed of the idea is shared by many.

or is that not allowed?

only single Black women and kids

It's just a work requirement with what looks to be some outreach.

Most people in public housing or housing assistance programs already have jobs.
The head scratcher of the proposed HUD policy is that they feel that by raising rents, they can encourage folks who already have jobs to do what? Get more jobs?

the force at which it was done was something new i hadn't heard of before. reminds me of 'ol dude with the charter school in Harlem who was like "we're here to help the kids, we're not here to help parents" level of idgaf. *shrugs*

wish i could relate more of the examples from the convo, but that shit was mad cold.

in that house.

most of the people affected already have jobs.

SMH.

The stereotype is the welfare queen. So broad based solutions are created to deal with the problem that they have for the most part invented themselves

you can have a debate on whether or not dependence on govt assistance can ultimately be harmful, but the way these people pretend with a straight face this is something they're doing out of tough love and not just callous greed is fucking nauseating.

but far be it for greedy politicians with their hands out to corporate America to admit that.

CEO/1% money grows at record pace.
Everyone else can't keep up with inflation.
More reliance on gov't assistance.

Republicans - THOSE MOOCHERS!
Democrats - WE NEED TO HELP THESE POOR BABIES!

While pointing the finger at each other.

When I see it on the front lines of HR everyday in interviews:

Why'd your leave you last job?
-They moved my role overseas.
-Company relocated to (insert country other than the US)
-I was downsized (usually due to automation)

STEM education should be the wave of America right now as that's where the world and the jobs are going to be for the foreseeable future. We should be retraining workers that are displaced by corporate greed. We should be penalizing (the mostly republican) businesses that kill American jobs and move them outside the country. Companies investing in robots to replace humans should have to pay a huge tax for that (just because it might be more efficient, doesn't mean it's good for society/America, if you don't have a plan to help those displaced, you need to pay for their welfare so they aren't dependent on gov't assistance).


I'm starting to slowly see that a LOT of conservative policy is about population control. They want to kill off a 3rd of society a la Thanos to MAGA their way to the (continued) good life.