The New York Times reports:
When thousands of poor families were given federal housing subsidies in the early 1990s to move out of impoverished neighborhoods, social scientists expected the experience of living in more prosperous communities would pay off in better jobs, higher incomes and more education.
That did not happen. But more than 10 years later, those same families say their lives have improved in a surprising way: They report being much happier than a comparison group of poor families who were not offered subsidies to move, a finding that was published on Thursday in the journal Science.
As I've long said, the worst thing about being poor in modern America is not that you can't afford to buy enough food, it's that you can't afford to get away from other poor people. So, it's not surprising that having the feds pay poor people to live away from quite so many other poor people makes the subsidy beneficiaries happier, even if it doesn't make them smarter or harder working.
But, did the researchers deign to ask their subjects' new neighbors if having poor people subsidized to move in next to them made them happier?
Posts
80 comments:
Of course not, Section 8 is open warfare against the 'wrong kind of white people'. The reckoning is coming soon though, as the US won't be able to pay to paper over the consequences of its malfeasance much longer. Then comes the Reaction.
Build me free housing next to Bill Gates' house and I'll b happy too.
We're getting a taste of this type of relocation here in California as the Mexivasion drives blacks out of the ghetto and into the suburbs. Bummer, man!
Section 8 is just block busting by another name. Poor people drive down real estate prices wherever they go; this makes surrounding homes affordable to Chinese investors looking to buy a rental property, which then becomes inhabited by other section 8 tenants. Of course, if you're a landlord with such tenants, you don't sweat painting the house, mowing the lawn, or fixing the roof. Before you know it, you have an enclave with de facto segregation, with the property owned by mercantile minority investors.
Section 8 is a way of offloading the cost of the poor onto self sufficient white communities. Obama and Valerie Jarrett were big proponents of this. It's the deep purpose of the civil rights movement: to redistribute white public resources to non-whites.
@Jehu
That's alt-right fantasy porn. It can be papered over indefinitely and hushed out of sight by the press even longer than that. Any "reaction" that ever does happen will be mercilessly crushed.
Anonymous,
I'd agree with you were this the early 90s with a much lower debt ratio. But now the ratio to GDP is over 1 and the death spiral of empire is well underway.
@ 3:45 Anon
Not just the chinese. It was in the WSJ the other day, "american" hedge funds are now major buyers of foreclosed homes.
Actually there was considerable research on this: Crime went up as did a lot of other indicators of social dysfunction in the areas blessed with these government- imposed migrants. I wish I could give you a cite but it's quite a while since I read this material. Of course, the neighborhoods that they were farmed out to were working class so elites like Babs Streissand wouldn't raise a fuss.
Lol, of course not. Poor people "moving on up" is supposed to make rich people and poor people feel good, not the ones in the middle.
I doubt if anybody even deigned to consider what the neighbors might think or want. Their only role is to pay for it all.
What happens to crime in neighborhoods with pockets of section 8?
Someone else may remember details better than I.
In Tennessee (IIRC), a cop was boggled by increased crime pockets throughout the city. (Memphis, Knoxville, Nashville?) He discussed this over dinner with his wife, who happened to be in a social work type field. Simple explanation. These neighborhoods had pockets of new Section 8 residents.
When thousands of poor families were given federal housing subsidies in the early 1990s to move out of impoverished neighborhoods, social scientists expected the experience of living in more prosperous communities would pay off in better jobs, higher incomes and more education.
That did not happen.
"That did not happen" would seem like the blockbuster headline here, and be all the reason needed to stop these programs.
Unless, of course, the true purpose was never to lead to better jobs, higher incomes and more education for the poor. In that case I can see why Uncle Sam might continue merrily on his way.
What is the racial breakdown of Section 8 voucher distribution?
Both places I've lived have imported NAM's. The crime rate has gone up and the schools are being wrecked.
Does the NYT realize what it said here? These people were taken out of the environment that the NYT will gladly tell you was holding them back in cognitive areas like education and income. They just do poorly because the schools suck, or they're too busy dodging bullets to study. It's totally the environment; definitely not anything inherent.
So a bunch of them were put in a better environment -- better schools, less crime to hold them back, better neighborhood standards to learn from and live up to, the whole shebang. And it did nothing. Heck, that even surprises me; I would have expected some improvement, just not enough to rule out genetic causes. But it didn't help at all. I'm amazed the NYT allowed that to see print. I guess they're confident that the rest of the article obfuscates it enough.
So it turns out that Trading Places was exactly wrong. In real life, Eddie Murphy's character would have continued to be a shiftless bum (but a happier one!), and Aykroyd's would have soon started to replace his millions. Wouldn't have made a very fun movie, though. (Incidentally, could you make a movie today that starts out with a black guy hustling people on the street by pretending to be a paralyzed veteran?)
This study hilariously contradicts the belief that income inequality leads to unhappiness. Books like The Spirit Level suggest that as these people move away from other poor people they should experience greater dissatisfaction, not to mention poorer health.
And they say evolutionary theories are Just So Stories.
Look at the bright side. The high school football teams where the kids of the Section 8 folks live finally have break away speed in the backfield.
American Murder Mystery
Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades.
By HANNA ROSIN
excerpt:
Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/306872/
"Gang Leader for a Day," Sudhir Venkatesh's sociological study of life in Chicago's Robert Taylor projects in the early 1990s, ends with the projects scheduled for demolition. A lot of the residents were upset about being moved to scatter-site housing, as in the projects they had some sort of community. They cooked together, baby-sat for each other, swapped services, and car pooled. Once they were scattered around, these options were lost. However appalling the projects may have appeared to outsiders, they may have been a better solution than what was substituted. Of course, liberals always describe low-income projects as "crime plagued" or "drug infested," as if the problem resides in the buildings instead of the residents, and so all their "solutions" are destined for failure.
What happens to crime in neighborhoods with pockets of section 8?
Someone else may remember details better than I.
In Tennessee (IIRC), a cop was boggled by increased crime pockets throughout the city. (Memphis, Knoxville, Nashville?) He discussed this over dinner with his wife, who happened to be in a social work type field. Simple explanation. These neighborhoods had pockets of new Section 8 residents.
Here it is, from the Atlantic Monthly.
We must be getting a lot more Section 8 people in famously non-black Orange County, CA. Every time I go to Target or the grocery store in upscale Anaheim Hills I see urban-looking blacks. That never used to happen before.
When thousands of poor families were given federal housing subsidies in the early 1990s to move out of impoverished neighborhoods, social scientists expected the experience of living in more prosperous communities would pay off in better jobs, higher incomes and more education.
As Nancy Pelosi might say: Seriously? Seriously?
It really boggles my mind that anybody -- anybody at all -- could be that mind-bendingly stupid. It's completely clear to me that these "social scientists" never had the slightest exposure to NAMs or true NAM culture. These people are the biggest fools in the history of the human race.
I remember Amren used to post letters from slaves professing how happy they were under their master's dominion. I thought it was funny then, but I guess they are still happier with their oppressors, but now the master is being cheated out of his labor. It was more fair back then.
more Section 8 people in famously non-black Orange County, CA.
How about all the way to Montana? The social workers are getting really ambitious these days. They're going to break up every last Whitopia standing.
Sometimes these schemes are perpetrated outside of section 8. I was president of a tenant's association in Princeton NJ during the transfer of a complex from rental to condo. The local Democrat politicos attempted to insert affordable housing grantees into the mix without telling the proposed condo purchasers. The plan only failed when the scheme was exposed by yours truly.
I'm sure this kind of thing happens all the time.
A hidden aspect is that those chosen for such affordable housing tend to be Democrat county committee people or relatives of public figures. This led me to christen the program, "Awardable Housing."
Awardable Housing - thats good.
But these connected folks getting the housing, wouldnt they tend to be somewhat less dysfunctional (on average) than the average section 8 beneficiary?
Crime went up as did a lot of other indicators of social dysfunction in the areas blessed with these government- imposed migrants.
Yeah, the idea was the Section 8'ers would see their neighbors getting up every morning and going to work and then think "I should get a job too".
What they really think is "Damn, all the houses in my neighborhood are empty during the day."
No, it didn't make my grandma happier. To the contrary, it made her afraid to walk to the local store because those happy transplants from the ghetto have been beating up the elderly in her neighborhood.
My father, an old-school liberal, believed that getting ghetto dwellers out of squalid public housing projects would help them. So he rented a SFH rental property he owned in a decent, multi-ethnic working class neighborhood to a Section 8 single mom. Soon after moving in she snuck her sister in, violating the terms of the lease, and they began letting all their friends come over to do their laundry there. This destroyed the washing machine, and they also destroyed light fixtures. Then the women started bringing their crackhead boyfriends, at which point neighbors alerted my father that these men were loudly beating each other up at all hours of the night. When my father saw what was going on and evicted them they'd punched holes in the walls and torn doors off the hinges. He never rented to Section 8 renters again.
Gloria
Would it be too impolite to ask Mr Goldin why he emigrated from South Africa after working tirelessly to build its post-apartheid future?
Is there really a Left anymore? Has the Left been bought as a plaything for the Rich? Or did former leftists become rich, and they've retained and remade leftism as a kind of pet indulgence?
Leftism used to be about workers and poor farmers. The posterboy of the Left was worker in overalls and prole hat. Or dirt poor farmer toiling to make ends meet.
In communist countries, people wore simple clothes. Showiness was considered narcissistic and materialistic.
What is the image of leftism today? Fancy pants Gays. Can gays be genuine leftists? All through history, gays had been allied with the aristocracy. As gays are into art and fancy stuff, they catered to the vanity of the rich and powerful. And in the modern era, gays are turned off by leftist and communist imagery of the simple worker in spartan clothes. Gays don't go for that. Gays like color. They love Hollywood and Broadway. They love the narcissistic, materialistic, and capitalistic style. Gays don't wanna dress like the working class and march with proles. They wanna work in fashion, make fancy dresses, cater to the rich, become rich, work in advertising, and be obsessed with style and the look. If any people were born to love capitalism, it was gays. No wonder there are so many successful gays in business. They want money, fame, glamour, and all that stuff.
So, it's funny as hell that the modern left is all about pushing gay interests. So, is the modern left really leftist anymore?
If leftism did get bought out by the rich, why did the rich buy it? Shouldn't the capitalist rich be anti-leftist? But maybe the rich wanna feel morally special and 'progressive' too, and so the idea of 'radicalism' was appealing to them. But the image of the simple worker in simple clothes is not appealing to rich 'progressives' who like fancy stuff. So, original leftism has been hollowed out of its prole content and it's been replaced by gay glamour. There's nothing really left left in the new left.
It's like Sierra Club used to be about the environment, but ever since rich Jews bought it out, it's been just a shill for open borders and 'green technology' that will Wall Street speculators rich.
What is the racial breakdown of Section 8 voucher distribution?
In Chicago:
http://www.thecha.org/pages/hcv_program_demographics/101.php
Roughly, 90% Black with the rest split evenly between whites and Latinos and negligible Asian contribution.
Certainly one of the biggest stories of the 20th century is the intransigence of communist overlords in dealing with human nature.
Despite every bit of evidence that communism and human nature were incompatible, ever more elaborate and destructive schemes to "make it work" and build the new socialist man were employed.
This eventually devolved into, of course, death camps for up to as many a hundred million people.
By golly, those peasants just needed a good head cracking or something, since the beautiful theory couldn't possibly be wrong.
We can all rest assured that PC, etc, is on exactly the same trajectory. The PC commissars aren't shooting people yet not because they don't want to, but just because they don't have the power. They clearly have no regard for destroying people's lives, communities, wealth, in the implementation and testing of their beliefs.
There are only a few tattered shreds of the Constitution and western tradition that stand between us and the abyss....
Surely there has to be some way to perform an end-run around Section 8. Perhaps some sort of housing development where one cannot own, sell to or rent a property within that development if any one of the tenants has a criminal record (esp. felony)? And the moment that you get convicted of a crime, you are forced to sell out?
There's got to be a way to capture the demand for affordable housing in a low crime environment. The solution of hocking yourself in debt to the eyeballs in order to buy your way out of living in a slum seems hopelessly inefficient to me, and it guarantees a low birth rate for those who choose it.
related: Lifespan shrinks for whites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
Is it possible for a man to be both a lawyer and doctor and be equally good at both? Naturally, he's not gonna be as good a doctor as a man who devotes all his time to doctoring, and he's not gonna be as good a lawyer as a man who devotes all his time to lawyering. But suppose the man who wants to be both doctor and lawyer demands that there be laws that guarantee that he will be as successful in lawyering as full-time lawyers and as successful in doctoring as full-time doctors. That would sound selfish and stupid, no?
So, what's with feminists who say that if a working woman decides to have a child and if she works only 50% of what she used to in order to spend time with her child, she should still be guaranteed equal success in work as a man who is 100% devoted to work?
And notice that feminists speak of the woman having the 'burden of raising a child'. Why is it called a 'burden'? Isn't work a burden too? Why not say a mother is burdened with having to work? There is happiness, joy, and blessing to be found in mothering, but it's a 'burden' that gets in the way of profession according to feminists. And so, even though a woman spends less time at work to spend more time with her kid, feminists say she should be compensated so that she'll professionally be equal to a man who works 100% at work. But isn't she compensated in the simple fact that she found so much joy and fulfillment in raising a child? She may make less money than her husband, but she's found great joy with the kid. Why should success and happiness only be measured in dollars?
It's like the half-doctor/half-lawyer saying he laws should ensure he be as successful as full time lawyers and full time doctors.
Anonymous said, "But these connected folks getting the housing, wouldnt they tend to be somewhat less dysfunctional (on average) than the average section 8 beneficiary?"
I knew that using the word "connected" would get me into trouble. It might seem that connected poor folks would be higher functioning than average section 8 recipients but in reality, at least in my experience, the relatives of connected poverty pimps are even more dysfunctional than average. They are the ones one hopes never to live near. To be connected in this context you only need to be helpful on election day in the appropriate neighborhood.
"Look at the bright side. The high school football teams where the kids of the Section 8 folks live finally have break away speed in the backfield."
Yes, but at my high school they lost their eligibility after first quarter grades came out and they miss the remainder of the season.
I was chased out of my neighborhood, which was only 17 years old by section 8s. The homes were very nice but small with small yards as they were intended by the builder to be either starter homes for singles or a childless couple or for those who had retired and wanted less yard and square footage to care for. When the first set of homeowners died (old age) or otheres moved to a bigger house, the houses became prime section 8 targets.
I moved to a nicer neighborhood with houses with more square footage, and now, after 17 years again, and the housing crunch, many houses are being rented to....section 8s.
While we have a very large Mexican population, where I am the section 8s are black, not Mexican. Don't know why.
Never forget. This incident was worse than described. Rumors still circulate that the NAMS forced the diners to perform incest and they made young and elderly have sex.
Notice the unrepentant moron calls stained glass "church glass" - so much for prison education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/nyregion/prison-release-recalls-horror-li-diner-1982-rampage-led-law-raising-felony.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
"So a bunch of them were put in a better environment -- better schools, less crime to hold them back, better neighborhood standards to learn from and live up to, the whole shebang. And it did nothing."
Oh, but it DID do something: it made the "better neighborhood" bad and destroyed the nicer schools. I live in such a community. If you don't, you have no idea how rapidly the deterioration takes place.
BTW, the Obama Administration is telling the schools in my community (the one ruined by section 8s and mass migration of NAMS) that we have to teach black kids differently--that's it's *our* failure to understand how black kids learn that accounts for their lack of academic success, that it's our inability to understand them that accounts for their behavioral "diversity" which often results in referrals.
Anon at 8:48
The article is a good example of why all states should have concealed carry. All it would have taken is one decent citizen with a gun to have put an end to those monsters that quick.
I'm with Jehu on this one. Requirements for gold-plated credit, declining incomes, a depressed economy, means people can't move. They're stuck. Throw a bunch of Section 8 in their, and they WILL rebel in some ways. You might not see it at first. But its happening.
In my view, one of the big ways is the great roaring withdrawal from public space. In favor of cyberspace, online stuff, and the like. People want to avoid other people, the usual aspect of diversity. One of the fairly shocking things in "Kim" by Kipling is how Indians dislike eating in public, preferring to find whatever privacy they can. This is alien to Whites who take joy in communal eating and "breaking of bread" together. The Business Lunch being a tradition of fellowship and deal-making over food.
The cost of making us "Indian" will be high.
I vote that we require every congressman to live between two such families.
And of course it doesn't improve educational outcomes. Think back to your grade school days: same teaachers, same schools, same books, same curriculum, similarly sized homes - but there were dumb kids and smart kids, from first grade on up.
"more Section 8 people in famously non-black Orange County, CA."
-------------------
"How about all the way to Montana? The social workers are getting really ambitious these days. They're going to break up every last Whitopia standing."
___________________________________
Hey, rich whites from LA/Hollywood have been buying up property in Montana. They've made it too rich for me to buy anything there.
Of course not, Section 8 is open warfare against the 'wrong kind of white people'.
You're alluding to class, but the upper and lower classes of Whites are equally reviled in the mass media, and middle-class Whites are the ones who fund White racial dispossession. Can you povide any evidence that there is a "right kind of white people"?
Obama is a trickster and opportunist but he does seem to have a core. I don't necessarily mean core ideology or values. I mean core ego, a strong sense of self. And this comes through, and I think this is why he's ahead. When people see Obama, they see a man with a core from with the radiance emanates. His core could be vanity and megalomania, but it's still a core, and there is a forcefulness about it--even if much of it is a kind of much-practiced shtick.
In contrast, there is no core about Romney. He has a nice face and smile but we sense no energy emanating from the core. Why is this?
Could it be because Obama grew up without his mother and father? As a kind of loner, maybe he felt a need to invent a sense of self, a kind of self-mythology. And this strengthened his sense of self--even if his sense of self bordered on delusional.
We see this with Reagan and Clinton too. Both came from troubled families and had troubled childhoods. Both created a mythic 'SELF' as a kind of protection against the dreary self of reality, especially of growing up under alcoholic/abusive father or father figure.
So, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama had to be creative with their sense of self. Since their fathers didn't instill what they should be, they had to invent what they wanna be.
In contrast, it could be Bush and Romney are such dullards cuz they were daddy's boys. Their powerful/successful daddies told them from day one what they should be. They were rich men's kids and they were to live up to their daddy's expectations. So, their sense of self was predetermined, and their idea of self was to just go along with the powers that be.
They never had a sense of the 'creative self'. Rather they were created selves--created by their fathers.
Sometimes these schemes are perpetrated outside of section 8. I was president of a tenant's association in Princeton NJ during the transfer of a complex from rental to condo. The local Democrat politicos attempted to insert affordable housing grantees into the mix without telling the proposed condo purchasers. The plan only failed when the scheme was exposed by yours truly.
Well done. They ought to do something to honor you. Surely, the Ivy League could live with two Meehan Auditoriums:
http://www.brown.edu/Athletics/Recsports/meehan.html
I'm with Jehu on this one. Requirements for gold-plated credit, declining incomes, a depressed economy, means people can't move. They're stuck. Throw a bunch of Section 8 in their, and they WILL rebel in some ways. You might not see it at first. But its happening.
In my view, one of the big ways is the great roaring withdrawal from public space. ...
A great example of how citizens can effectively revolt when there is no hope and when the government is all powerful is the Soviet Union and its fall. A significant fraction of the men at all levels simply reached the point where they just didn't care any more and they effectively disengaged and adopted massive passive aggression. When you can't even fight, why not drink all day? Why not go fishing? Why work hard? What are they going to do to you?
Ben Tillman: Hah! I never knew that there was a Meehan auditorium. If there was to be a second, it should be at Rutgers. I just lived in Princeton.
You're alluding to class, but the upper and lower classes of Whites are equally reviled in the mass media, and middle-class Whites are the ones who fund White racial dispossession. Can you povide any evidence that there is a "right kind of white people"?
Can you give me one example of a white Obama supporter who has been vilified in the mass media(excluding Fox News, which is really alternative news on domestic issues)? Or, if you prefer a greater challenge, can you give me one example of a white supporter of affirmative action and open borders who has been vilified in the mass media?
Thus, the right kind of white person has a college degree, earns a big income, shelters his money, sends the kids to private school or an all white/Asian public high school, supports AA and votes for Obama- oh, I forgot, supports immigration too. Have you ever heard of such a person being vilified in the media?
A great example of how citizens can effectively revolt when there is no hope and when the government is all powerful is the Soviet Union and its fall. A significant fraction of the men at all levels simply reached the point where they just didn't care any more and they effectively disengaged and adopted massive passive aggression. When you can't even fight, why not drink all day? Why not go fishing? Why work hard? What are they going to do to you?
Exactly.
In theory: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
That system soon becomes a massive wealth transfer, as every dishonest person claims that he has no ability but a lot of need.
The way to destroy such a system is for the honest and able to realize that the game is rigged and to down tools.
"In theory: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Yeah, but the praxis in the anti-white, racist USSA is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his ninos.
"Leftism used to be about workers and poor farmers."
Not really. It used those people as poster boys, as you said, but it wasn't really about them.
Leftism is about tearing down traditional institutions and making every man his own arbiter of good and evil. When it was busy tearing down traditions like monarchy, rule of law, and property rights, mobs of poor workers were a useful tool.
But now it's moved on to tearing down things like traditional religion and the family, so now its poster children are homosexuals, slutty women, and criminals. Different tools for a different job.
Throw a bunch of Section 8 in their, and they WILL rebel in some ways. You might not see it at first. But its happening.
How and where is it happening? WHAT is happening?
That Long Island story is absolutely sick. The perps should have been lynched. The Knoxville Five too.
Whites are the eloi class.
"Of course not, Section 8 is open warfare against the 'wrong kind of white people'."
"You're alluding to class, but the upper and lower classes of Whites are equally reviled in the mass media"
It's a process. You can't target everyone at once so you salami slice them and work your way up, first the unskilled bluecollar, then the semi-skilled, then the skilled, then you start on the whitecollar etc.
In America the process has reached the whitecollar segment. In europe it's still (mostly) only partway through the bluecollar.
.
"a great example of how citizens can effectively revolt when there is no hope and when the government is all powerful is the Soviet Union and its fall."
Yes, that's what i think will happen. The success of the recent Olympics in London was largely built on the tradition of volunteerism.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19201329
Gradually that will stop and bowling alone will take over.
What is the racial breakdown of Section 8 voucher distribution?
Here are some sample numbers on housing subsidies from 1993 and 2001 (PDF file, numbers start on p. 10). For comparison's sake, total population numbers in 2000 were: White non-hispanic 75.1, Black 12.6, Hispanic 12.5 (see here, p. 7).
Cail:
Or maybe different people within a huge multi-century, moulti-national political and social movement had different ideas and goals.
I wonder how much of the housing bubble was caused by this treadmill of seeding good neighborhoods with bad neighbors, watching as the neighborhoods and schools crashed, and then selling the fleeing residents houses in a new development 10 miles further out of town, where the public schools will be good for awhile because the students are mostly middle class whites and Asians. I doubt anyone exactly planned things this way, but this drives a huge amount of demand for new developments full of expensive houses, new malls and schools in those new developments, etc. Local developers and real estate agents must have noticed this dynamic from time to time, and may have encouraged it. If I were heavily invested in a new housing project a few miles further out, I'd definitely be interested in seeding the local reasonably-nice neighborhoods with Section 8 residents, since this would increase demand for the houses I was selling.
Presumably, this is part of what's behind the McMansion trend, too--huge houses mean expensive which means the wrong kind of people won't move in anytime soon. (Wrong here is about social class and wealth, but correlates with race. Few middle class people cringe at the thought of a black doctor or schoolteacher or policeman moving in next door.)
Back in 2007 there was a huge scandal when New Jersey welfare officials in Newark, Camden and Trenton were actively ENCOURAGING their worst cases to pack up and move to Pennsylvania cities like Altoona, Scranton, Bethlehem, Wilkes-Barre etc. The Welfare officials told them that benefits were more generous there, with shorter waiting periods, lower rents and better Section 8 support, more generous school systems etc. etc.
The New Jersey welfare officials actually PRINTED FLIERS to pass out to their local welfare cases - these fliers extolled the virtues of moving to these various Pennsylvania cities. The welfare offices in PA were getting hundreds of calls from Newark, mostly from people who did not know where Altoona or Scranton were located.
Needless to say, crime rates shot up immediately.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-15-altoona_N.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/intelligencer-journal-lancaster-new-era-combined-saturday-edition/mi_8130/is_20070817/pa-public-housing-perfect-nj/ai_n52830878/
@ Matthew
I like your idea of requiring every congressman to live between two such families.
My idea-
Buy homes next door to leaders of SPLC & ACLU type organizations. "Rent" them to unemployed thugs (or hire actors to play the part) who are home all day talking junk to moms and kids and doing other things to ruin the neighborhood.
Make it personal but keep it legal. Ask bored moms if they want to make a little extra money or if they want to party. Ask kids playing outside if their house has a security system. Etc. Once for sale signs appear, offer to sell your house for a huge profit.
The godfather of this junk is Alexander Polikoff. Yes, he was an ACLU lawyer.
>As a kind of loner, maybe [Obama] felt a need to invent a sense of self[...]--even if his sense of self bordered on delusional. We see this with Reagan and Clinton too. Both came from troubled families and had troubled childhoods. Both created a mythic 'SELF' as a kind of protection against the dreary self of reality, especially of growing up under alcoholic/abusive father or father figure.<
You seem to be describing elements of psychopathology, like splitting in Narcissitic Personality Disorder. (Not to say Romney is necessarily any healthier.)
"(Not to say Romney is necessarily any healthier.)"
Not obligatory to be pc around here. Romney is healthier as regards his personal morals and life. Infinitely healthier. And he has never written his memoires about himself. Good sign.
I have testimony from sources I trust that he hasn't cheated on his wife (not that that's ALWAYS means anything), and he does have a moral code, and he doesn't give off dissonant vibe by violating it.
Obama, OTOH, is in a constant state of lie. He really is mentally ill.
Now all that being said, do I think Romney is upright and honest as a politician? No. No. and No. There's no such thing. Once they enter that life, at that level, they cannot be honest. They can only be corrupt. The few exceptions take an original path (Ron Paul IMO), or get killed or pushed out of office. Some do manage to keep their standards in their personals lives. But not their political self.
My lovely little city north of Boston (with WAY too much rental stock) has seen the NAM population increase by double-digit rates for the past 5 years. Upside: the high school basketball team made it to the state finals for the first time in its history. Downside: the high school's 10th grade scores in all three categories of the MCAS, Massachusetts' annual No Child Left Behind test, are down for the first time since its inception.
The funny thing is that the real estate prices in the mid-range (350K-600K) are still strong. My friend in real estate says it's driven by Asians, another burgeoning demographic here, who want to live on the transit line but have no intention of sending their kids to public schools.
"You seem to be describing elements of psychopathology, like splitting in Narcissitic Personality Disorder."
Yeah, and if it gets a hold of you, you can go nuts. But if you can get a hold if it and use it creatively, it might make you a great actor.
Hitler was evil, true, but he lost his parents early and he lost his country, and he had to form a new identity on his own creatively and that fired him up.
Obama's book is called DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, but it should really be called Mein Dream or DREAMS OF MYSELF.
Creative use of madness is what makes great artists great. Same with politicians. Reagan, Clinton, and Obama grew up unstable and could have easily lost themselves. But they had a force of will and enough creative cunning to forge a new self. As 'actors' on the world stage, they learned to schmooze a lot of people like all other politicians. But they also developed a great idea of self in absence of father figures who taught them how.
Father figures can help sons to grow and develop. But father figures can also overshadow their sons. Mitt still acts like he's acting in the shadow of his father. There is no magnetic sense of self.
And because such people become psychologically savvy in developing their own alternate 'selves', they understand the psychology of others much better and know how to manipulate it.
Reagan knew how to read the pulse of the nation. So did Clinton. Obama knows how to read white psychology and push the right buttons--just like Oprah. The guilt button, the redemption button, the fascination with black charisma button, the fear of black rage button, etc.
Romney has no clue on the psychology of others. He's like an auto dealer who knows how to get along with people and he's gone far that way, but shaking hands, slapping people's backs, and smiling a lot is not the same as READING and MANIPULATING the minds of others.
His effort to sell himself is about as successful as his efforts to convert people to Mormonism.
"A great example of how citizens can effectively revolt when there is no hope and when the government is all powerful is the Soviet Union and its fall. A significant fraction of the men at all levels simply reached the point where they just didn't care any more and they effectively disengaged and adopted massive passive aggression."
But they didn't have Negroes to worry about.
A lot of white people don't so much being poor. The problem is being poor might mean having to live next to dangerous Negroes.
I'd rather be poor and live in a white neighborhood than be middle class and live next to tons of Negroes.
Would neighbors have given an honest answer if asked? If they said they aren't happy, they'd be attacked as 'racist'.
We need to save the term race-ism. To me, it's the most meaningful and beautiful word.
"The Welfare officials told them that benefits were more generous there, with shorter waiting periods, lower rents and better Section 8 support, more generous school systems etc. etc."
This. This is what must be going on. Only now they're reaching way out to the mountain west.
Yeah things are much easier here. For now.
"a great example of how citizens can effectively revolt when there is no hope and when the government is all powerful is the Soviet Union and its fall."
Really? From what I understand and remember, the docile population just watched as the USSR gradually weakened and went belly up. Then the "Soviet Union- Yay or Nay?" was put to a vote, and with a low turnout, the population lethargically voted "nay". Actually, no one's really sure if the elections were valid or not.
The rebellious, brave thing to do was to listen to "The Voice of America" on the radio. And, oh yeah, that one guy unveiled an oppositional poster at the Red Square for 5 seconds before he got arrested. And, yes, yes, I forgot- some kids secretly wore smuggled jeans to college parties and chewed gum!
Anyone know any fun songs? How about:
And drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and fight!/
And drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and fight!/
And if I see a pretty girl, I'll sleep with her tonight!/
And drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and drink and fight!/
OR
I drank my life away
My son is turning gay
To keep these thoughts at bay
I drink away the day
How are all those former Soviets doing, nowadays, since they are so great at revolting and standing up for themselves? Does the regular guy see anything from the sales of the natural resources? Judging by their dramatically shrinking lifespans (WTH?!?!? Is Russia in Sub-Saharan Africa?), I wouldn't be so sure.
And if we look at the recent stats and listen to our friends from certain corners of the manosphere, former Soviet women are- what's the euphemism?- "uncorrupted by feminism", especially outside of the big cities. Thailand used to be the #1 destination to meet women uncorrupted by feminism. Now, it's Ukraine. I don't know if Ukrainian boys are also as uncorrupted by feminism as the Thai boys were famous to be. But if the young women are in such a dire situation, one can imagine that the young boys are pretty desperate too.
Leftism used to be about workers and poor farmers.
Leftism used to claim to be about workers and poor farmers. But the home of leftism, in the West at least, was always in the colleges and among the "intelligentsia". Much to the fury of the left, the workers and poor farmers never had much time for them. That's why the left changed tactics and moved away from "economic class" and towards "race and gender" as its primary argument. So we arrived at the modern Democratic Party, largely indifferent to economic concerns but obsessed with ginning up a "war against women" and a "war against blacks" and "anti-Semitism", because these are the subjects which their constituency really cares about.
But these connected folks getting the housing, wouldnt they tend to be somewhat less dysfunctional (on average) than the average section 8 beneficiary?
I don't know - do you think that e.g. Sheila Lee Jackson's cousin's would tend to be less less dysfunctional (on average) than the average section 8 beneficiary? I suspect the opposite might be true.
So let's stop this mess. Vote for Romney! We cannot allow B.O. to have another term in office. He will be like Hugo Chavez on steroids. Now that is a disgusting image...
Severn said: But the home of leftism, in the West at least, was always in the colleges and among the "intelligentsia".
Hunsdon replied: Joe Hill, Big Bill Haywood, Gene Debs----academics all, tenured professors . . . from the school of hard knocks.
"His effort to sell himself is about as successful as his efforts to convert people to Mormonism"
He doesn't need to "sell" himself. Obama is as popular among most whites as used tissue. Romney is still unused tissue and so you jurst buy it because you need tissue.
After four years of eating crow, he looks good. I personally am not a Republican, but I am amused that Ohio, who Obama won by only 4%, now, after 4 yrs of a predictable (to me) awful presidency apparently, his poularlity has doubled! Talk about magic Negros.
There is no way Obama would have doubled popularity even in Maryland, land of the delusional Obots, much less Ohio.
So I know they're lying. There was a discussion recently about why the Jeremiads on conservative web site, lamenting the "popularity" of Obama, and how the Repubs are doomed, doomed, doomed. The MSM keeps telling us so...boo hoo.
"What happens to crime in neighborhoods with pockets of section 8"?
I think it's pretty much a safe bet to say that any area that suffers the misfortune of a sudden influx of blacks is going to see a huge upswing in crime.
Very high levels of crime and violence are pretty much a universal characteristic of black communities.
unix:
So you think all the opinion polls are lying? There are smething like 12 polling organizations llisted at 538 covering Ohio. A big majority of polls show Obama ahead. Your explanation requires most of those organizations to be conspiring together to lie about the results they're seeing, even at the cost of gettting the election prediction wrong and maybe even being found out. That seems very unlikely to me.
If this is widespread, we should often see polls overpredicting Democratic victories. Is there evidence of that?
This looks like wishful thinking to me.
Eric said: Yeah, the idea was the Section 8'ers would see their neighbors getting up every morning and going to work and then think "I should get a job too". What they really think is "Damn, all the houses in my neighborhood are empty during the day."
Exactly. A tiny pocket of Section 8ers were moved into my friendly Chicago neighborhood. Within a week my mail had been stolen (I happened to find it laying at the bottom of a shallow puddle because I recognized my mom's handwriting!). Ditto my bike. My neighbors had similar stories. What really got me was that the new residents (all blacks) would loll on their front steps cussing and smoking and eating Cheetos while the Mexican landscapers picked up their trash, mowed their tiny lawns, etc. Shameless.
Your explanation requires most of those organizations to be conspiring together to lie about the results they're seeing, even at the cost of gettting the election prediction wrong and maybe even being found out. That seems very unlikely to me.
If this is widespread, we should often see polls overpredicting Democratic victories. Is there evidence of that?
Yes, actually, there is such evidence.
One curious thing about the current polls which look so rosy for Obama is that they have so many Democrats. A recent Fox News poll showed Obama winning Ohio - but according to that poll, 42% of Ohio voters are Democrats, 36% are Republican, and 21% are Independent.
Ohio has 18 seats in Congress at present - five held by Democrats and thirteen held by Republicans. It also has a Republican Governor. Is it really a state where only 36% of the voters are Republican?
"Mein Dream"
Funny!!
Post a Comment