JOIN OCAP AND GOVERNMENT HOUSING TENANTS
IN A DELEGATION TO THE HOUSING BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
This Wednesday, August 1st, 11 am
Meet at the park just outside Rosedale Subway station.
Tenants in government housing have to live as they do because the people running things don’t consider decent living conditions for them to be any kind of a priority. That will change when tenants organize to be loud and angry. On August 1st we will be going to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) board of directors responsible for the conditions. Don’t just stay home and grumble. Come out with us and confront those to blame!
***
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
10 Britain St. Toronto, ON M5A 1R6
416-925-6939 ocap@tao.ca www.ocap.ca
***
![Daily Mail [UK]](http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t193/Annamarie_033/mHead2.gif "British daily newspaper")
July 29, 2007 at 12:11 pm |
Here’s a better idea, why not gather over there at take the residents out and show them how to FIND A JOB! While you’re at it show them how to KEEP A JOB! Before long, they won’t have to live in public housing, they’ll be able to BUY THIER OWN HOUSE!
OOOOH, let’s go throw a protest for the lazy asses who won’t do anything to take care of themselves! Action like that is nothing but poverty enabling mental masturbation, it makes you feel good, but it produces NOTHING of value!
July 29, 2007 at 5:09 pm |
It would take me too long to explain a few things to you…. and I’m on my way out.. I just have one question for you now: have you absolutely no compassion toward your fellow human beings??
July 29, 2007 at 5:49 pm |
I absolutely DO have compassion; I have enough compassion to believe that it’s FAR better to TEACH a man to fish so that he can feed himself for a lifetime, than it is to GIVE him a fish and feed him for a single day (I remember reading something about that in the BIBLE). I believe that all of these government entitlement programs have done nothing but create a permanant underclass and deprived too many people of the drive and incentive to do for themselves. I believe that it is NOT the governments place to forcibly seize your, my, or anyone elses hard earned money and redistribute it to lifelong Welfare leeches, crackheaded brood cows, or anyone else that cannot demonstrate the fact that they’ve at the very least honestly TRIED to find gainful employment. To quote my Grandfather, who grew up during our Great Depression, “sympathy is a word in the dictionary between shit and syphallis”. Being IMPATHETIC towards others is all well and good, and helping them to help themselves is even better, but giving people something they haven’t earned will only erode their spirit, and make permanant leeches of them.
Verbena, you cannot explain anything to me when it comes to this subject. I grew up VERY poor, but we had enough pride to do for ourselves, or do WITHOUT! We never asked anyone, much less the gov’t, for assistance because we knew that so long as we were healthy and able bodied that doing so would be an insult to God, and proof positive of our own sheer laziness, and we may have been many things, but lazy sure as hell wasn’t one of them.
July 31, 2007 at 12:57 am |
str8shooter,
I actually accept your fishing analogy to a point. I think it is better if people have skills with which to support themselves. In itself its not the answer, but its important. However, whenever I hear this analogy, I think to myself, it’s all well and good to teach someone to fish, but what if that person doesn’t have a fishing pole?
July 31, 2007 at 2:33 am |
Stephen,
By not having a fishing pole, I presume you’re referring to those in our society who, for whatever reason (mental or medical) are literally unable (not just unwilling) to participate in the workforce. I have already addressed that in a different thread, but for clarity sake let me be clear and state that those who CAN NOT care for themselves SHOULD be cared for. The problem is that with the current system, it’s so easy to get “in the system” that people whose only ‘challenge’ is sheer laziness have been taking money and services from the system to the detriment of those who truly need the help, thereby hamstringing the entire process.
The fact is though, that with very few exceptions, most people, even those with all but the most debilitating physical or mental infirmaties are able to participate in the workforce if they merely possess the will to do so, and with the current laws protecting the rights of the disabled, there really is no reason for the vast majority of people “in the system” to be there other than their own lack of will (which IMNSHO, the Liberals have created with their ‘benevolent assistance’ over the past 70 years).
July 31, 2007 at 3:07 am |
str8shooter: At least you agree that there ARE some people who are so debilitated by mental/physical disabilities that they are unable to work. The very FEW of these unfortunate people do NOT make nearly enough during those few hours that they may be able to work to afford the rising costs of housing. Don’t forget that in many urban areas — the Greater Toronto Area being a prime example — there is a dire shortage of AFFORDABLE housing. Sure, there are lots of high-end units, but who can afford them? There are people working STEADY jobs — often TWO sometimes even THREE jobs — just to afford the rent. Many others are forced to bunk with relatives, friends. They simply can NOT AFFORD to pay the rental costs!!! These people are NOT LAZY. they work tirelessly, but still can’t afford the basics. Many low-rental properties are in very bad state of disrepair. You would not want to live in them. BUT THAT IS ALL SOME PEOPLE CAN AFFORD!! So what is wrong them asking for decent units that are within their limited means???
Stephen: I like your “…but what if that person doesn’t have a fishing pole?” That is my point. What if you can’t even afford a very rudimentary ‘fishing pole’, like a long piece of string?
Poverty is REAL. And believe it or not, the average working person is but a pay-cheque or two away from it themselves. Just the other day, I heard something on the news that a record number of Americans have lost their homes due to foreclosures. During the ‘Great Depression’ that stra8shooter refers to, millions of people: farmers, businessmen, hard-working people all lost their farms, homes, businesses in the same way. They were NOT lazy! They were victims of the system.
Globally, there are vastly many more poor people than those who at least live relatively decent (not rich) lives. There are no ‘easy fixes’. But at least here in Canada, we could start by addressing the issues such as: poverty on First Nations, urban poverty and affordable housing, the ‘working poor’ (whose numbers are also rising), affordable childcare, tuition so that young people can actually afford higher education which would make them more employable in a competitive work-force, and more…
To simply — prejudicially — lump all poor people together and label them as lazy welfare bums is simplistic, childish, idiotic, unrealistic, grossly cruel …. not to mention that that type of tunnel-vision does nothing to address this growing problem. If anything, it exacerbates it.
July 31, 2007 at 6:34 am |
The point I had in mind about the fishing pole was not about those with illnesses and disabilities, although that’s important too, and many people you find on the streets will have a disability of some kind.
I was referring to resources. You can’t very well land a job if you have no food in your belly, or if you don’t have a roof over your head. And you can’t have a roof over your head if you don’t have the money for it. It is sad but true that there are a lot of people out there, including some working people, who have to choose between food and shelter.
July 31, 2007 at 10:56 am |
Verbena,
I find your statements to be rather strange given the facts. I just did a VERY quick cursory search of rental units as well as jobs in the Toronto area, and what did I find? The cost of living (rental costs and salaries) are comparable to the area that I live in here in the States! Not only that, but the number of jobs listed on the website I found (the first one that came up in my web search) indicates that finding a job shouldn’t be any trouble at all for someone who WANTS to work. Simply put, your assertion holds no water!
Easy fixes? Sure, there’s a very easy fix for whatever problems the economy up there might be experiencing, it’s called THE FREE MARKET! Get rid of most of the entitlements programs, lower taxes on businesses (so that they can afford to even hire more people and expand their busshiness), lower taxes on individual incomes (more money in your own pocket), etc., etc. In other words, do what Conservatives have been trying to do here for the past couple of decades which is why we have almost unprecedented unemployment, higher wages, and a stock market that’s done nothing but steadily climb. Better yet, have your governments call people like Rudy, he did a lot of the things I just mentioned in New York while he was Mayore there, besides slashing the crime rate.
July 31, 2007 at 11:01 am |
Stephen,
The situation you describe begs the question, how did they get into that condition in the first place? The situation you describe doesn’t happen by itself, or overnight, it requires a special set of circumstances that indicate that is FAR from the norm.
On the surface it would follow that at some time the individuals in question failed to maintain their employment, or if their job ended, they failed to secure another job. Now we can parry back and forth with all of the extreme examples in the world, which are ALL far from the norm, but for the vast majority of people, the example you forward simply doesn’t happen unless they themselves failed to do what they were supposed to do, and therefore it’s NOT MY PROBLEM!
July 31, 2007 at 4:25 pm |
Stephen: your point is well taken. I knew that’s what you meant, but I just mentioned the disabled in response to s.
S: No, that’s not your problem, so don’t worry about it. Let those of us with a social conscience do the caring, worrying, and trying to work toward solutions… Thank God that people like you are in the minority (no offense meant). And I don’t know where you got your web info from, but the housing situation is far worse than what you describe. I personally know many hard-working people who are barely squeezing by month-to-month, and it gets worse for them as rents and utilities are constantly increased, while their pay-cheques are NOT. So please don’t sit on your high horse and pontificate. If you don’t care about other people’s plight, that is your choice. Just don’t deride and denigrate those of us who do.
July 31, 2007 at 10:56 pm |
V,
You mistake your “social conscience” for compassion. The only thing you’re doing is promoting the permanant underclass, and perpetual needy (read LEECHS). If you were TRULY compassionate you’d quit coddling and ‘mothering’, and CUT THE APRON STRINGS! The only way children truly grow up is by being out on their own, earning their own money, paying their own bills and finding their own success. By constantly providing an unlimited ’safety net’ for people, you ensure that they never truly grow up (does New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina ring any bells?).
As far as where I got my information from concerning availability and cost of rentals, that would be http://www.torontorentals2.kgbinternet.com/rentalsAppWeb/SearchAd9?comingFromHTML=true&requiredToa=unfurn&nob=x&price=x&tob=x&area=x&smoking=x&pets=x&ma=x&sort=1&results=1&submit.x=30&submit.y=10, and http://www.renthome.ca/index.php?a=Listings, and http://www.torontohomerentals.com/gta_apartments.html, so if someone is finding it difficult to find a place to live, THEY AREN’T LOOKING! If they can’t afford to rent some of these places, I would strongly suggest that they get a job at Wal Mart stocking shelves because in my area they pay more than enough to afford the lower end accomodations listed in any of those 3 sites. Better yet, get a job as a construction laborer/helper during the day and pump gas at night and you could move up into the middle price brackets!!!
V, I may have been born in the night, but it wasn’t LAST night, so don’t try and blow smoke up my skirt about how hard it is to find a job or a place to live, BTDT and the only thing keeping people from doing for themselves is their own laziness and people like you willing to supplement them with other peoples money! Better yet, before you try to lecture me about ‘compassion’, why don’t you go out and find some of your so called ‘unfortunates’ and move them into YOUR house, THEN I might begin to believe in your alleged ‘compassion’.
August 1, 2007 at 2:18 am |
Vancouver is bad these days, housing wise. And that’s the working poor as well as the at-risk population. Property values have been skyrocketing in recent years, and I think a lot of people who never actually thought they would have to worry about getting by are starting to get nervous.
And then of course there’s the Downtown Eastside, the poorest postal code in Canada, which is slowly being gentrified. and the lack of government response at all levels to the housing crunch.
August 1, 2007 at 3:09 am |
Thanks, Stephen, for filling me in on the Vancouver situation.
August 1, 2007 at 3:44 am |
S: I just checked your links. The cheapest was a 1-bedroom for $750. plus utilities. That’s suitable for 1 person or a couple. But for families, you’ll notice the rents jump exponentially.
In answer to your: “…before you try to lecture me about ‘compassion’, why don’t you go out and find some of your so called ‘unfortunates’ and move them into YOUR house, THEN I might begin to believe in your alleged ‘compassion’.”
– Well, I have done that, believe it or not. I’ve had people stay in my place until they got on their feet (after they went through some life-altering changes/tragedies/separations/illnesses/job layoffs or in-between jobs, etc… ) and they managed to put together the money needed to move in somewhere: 1st & last month’s rent, deposits for utilities, etc., It is not always the month’s rent that’s causing the problem, but all the extra move-in costs. So yes, I often lend a helping hand. I’ve done this when I lived in the US too. (No, I didn’t go around picking the homeless off the street, but I’d volunteered in shelters, and still do that up here.)
Yes, I’m compassionate, and no, I don’t agree with your views on this, or much else for that matter…. We are diametrically opposite on everything except for the NAU: neither of us want that for our country, although for different reasons.
(btw, I’d like to be a fly on the wall during those Council meetings if you do run, and do get elected… I can just imagine the vitriol you’ll be spewing on your hapless Lib counterparts… LOL )
August 1, 2007 at 3:46 am |
Stephen,
I honestly don’t get it. I’m not trying to be difficult here, but I REALLY don’t get it. WHY is it the governments responsibility to respond to a purely private issue? If a lack of housing is an issue, then private enterprise usually moves in a builds more, thereby creating jobs, and filling a need within the community, or at least that’s been my experience here in the good ole USofA, even if it’s ‘affordable housing’ subdivisions or groups like Habitat for Humanity.
Perhaps I’m just a bit more than jaundiced, but it’s been my experience that anytime “government” is the answer, it’s got to be a seriously fouled up question (have I mentioned how well the “gov’t” handled the aftermath of Katrina lately?)!
August 1, 2007 at 3:53 am |
V,
I’m shocked! I don’t spew vitriol, I simply tell the truth as I see it and if someone gets offended by it, that’s their problem. Like the old saying goes, “if the truth hurts, you might want to reevaluate your position”.
Perhaps you can help me understand something though; why is it that so many Libs have no problem pointing out everything under the sun that’s “wrong”, but so rarely have any reasonable solutions FOR those problems, and if they do it usually includes stealing even more money from people who are already overtaxed to begin with? I mean DAMN, didn’t anyone ever tell you that money can’t buy happiness?
August 1, 2007 at 4:10 am |
S,
Yes, I know that money can’t buy happiness, That’s why I’m not rich… LOL
There are quite a few Libs (progressives ?) who actually have some good ideas for solutions, and not always by picking your pocket (as in more taxes)… Surprisingly, I agree with you on the issue of taxes: the working people and small entrepreneurs who are the backbone of a country are always the ones carrying the heaviest tax burden. This is not right. Absolutely not!
August 1, 2007 at 5:09 am |
While I’m glad that we can agee that raising taxes isn’t the answer, to be completely fair about it, the small entrepreneurs and working people really don’t pay any taxes per se`, at least not here in America. The fact is, according to the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all income taxes, the top 10% pay about 65%, and the top 50% pay over 95% of all income taxes received by the IRS. Simply put, if you’re not declaring an adjusted gross income of at least $250,000 a year in America, you’re NOT paying your fair share in Income Taxes. Now, there are those “broke minded” individuals who will say “good, they’ve got it, they can pay it”, but this attitude ignored the fact that the vast majority of those people are the business owners who provide those very same said “broke minded” individuals with a job, which is what puts food on their table, a roof over their heads, and clothes on thier backs! Yeah, stick it to the rich, until they close, cut back, or outsource their business and then you’ll hear these same “broke minded” individuals crying about the evil business owners turning thier backs on their own country and screwing the ‘little guy’, when it’s their country that turned it’s back on them LONG before they reciprocated.
Now, also to be completely fair, income taxes account for less than 30% of all income to the US Treasury, the rest come from all other forms of taxation, the vast majority of which are imbedded taxes that most of us pay without even realizing it, since it’s already been paid by the manufacturers all the way down the line from the raw materiels to the finished product, and everywhere in between (like the average 19% on gasoline I mentioned earlier).
As an example, a simple loaf of bread has over 100 separate taxes paid on it before it even gets to the grocery store, and each and every one of these taxes were levied wtihout most of our knowledge or consent (so much for “no taxation without representation”!).
August 1, 2007 at 5:22 am |
S.
btw, you might ask: well, then where’s the money to come from for all these ’social programs’ you’re advocating? Well, for starters, let’s cut back the politicians’ salaries to a less obscene level, and scale back on some of the unnecessary perks they get at our expense. I read in the Toronto Star the other day, that many government ministers (no, not preachers) have limos waiting around just to take them a few blocks that they could easily walk, or get to by their own vehicle. Instead, the streets are filled with all these expensive limos. Tell me, why do they need those? And toilet seats costing taxpayers thousands of dollars?! Plus all the other insane, needless perks these spoiled sobs get? People were outraged that both Liberal and Conservative MPPs voted themselves hefty yearly raises ($40,000 +) yet they quibble about raising the minimum wage by less than $2 bucks!! (There were a few who actually declined the raises, mainly the MPs of the NDP..)
There are too many places where governments (ministries, bureaucracies, departments, etc…) waste a lot of taxpayer dollars. HUGE AMOUNTS, when you add them up! So it would be a good start to give these leeches less, and instead give more/better tax breaks to builders who build affordable yet decent housing. We don’t need more million-dollar condos. Who can really afford them?
The City of Toronto originally had promised/proposed to make a large part of the Lakeshore (at the foot of downtown) into a parkland and public areas that can be enjoyed by all residents. Those plans have been now changed to building more high-rise condos! For whom?
Another instance of greedy city officials/bureaucrats is my area of Brampton. It is an older mainly residential area, populated mostly by working people, some professionals (teachers and such), older people and families, and contains a few schools, churches, small shopping plazas. Lots of mature trees, greenery… no high-rises. But the ‘wise’ (greedy) city council has ok’d a developer to build highrise condos (6 of them, the tallest 32 storeys!) on a vacant grassy corner backing onto a forested parkland and nice little lake, right beside a small rec centre and library. It would bring in about 3,000 more residents and glut the already traffic-congested main thoroughfare. Residents of the area do NOT WANT 3,000 more people here. But does the city listen to us? No, but they’re raising our property taxes AGAIN this fall… (they’d just raised them a year ago). So we, the residents of the neighbourhood, have formed a ‘task force’ to see if we can at least lessen the impact of all this. We’d have been ok with having a seniors’ residence built on that long-vacant lot, or even some low-rise housing, but NOT highrises! (An extension of the rec centre or parkland would have been the most preferred.) Anyway, we’ve been having meetings, did our own area studies, and have ongoing discussions with the developer and city… (city officials speaking out of both sides of their mouths agree with us on one hand, but then let the developer do what he wants) … Likely outcome: the highrises will go up, but maybe not quite that tall… But at least we’ll know that we’ve tried. Sometimes, though, I really don’t know if all the time and effort are worth it… It’s hard to fight City Hall.
Enough said. Too tired… g’night
August 1, 2007 at 5:52 am |
S.
I agree with you about the taxes and that we’re paying on many items without even realizing it. In Canada, our taxes are much higher, so that even someone under $100,000. pays a hefty chunk. I’m not sure of the percentages now, as the scale varies… Here, the working person (plumber, construction worker, minor office worker, small business owner and such) pays a lot more taxes. Those over the six figures can usually afford all kinds of tax shelters which the average working person can not. We also have both provincial and federal sales taxes on everything, PST + Goods and Services Tax [GST], If you get a donut and coffee at Horton’s you pay GST. Same when you get a haircut. (6% GST + 8% PST). Non-prescription medicines are subject to these same taxes, and even some food items that are considered ’snack-food’. It gets confusing, and I’m always confused what’s taxable and what is not, and usually end up digging in my wallet for the difference that I hadn’t calculated…
Anyway, I’m nowhere near the 6 figure income, and likely won’t be either, so I pay my taxes, plus those on everything I buy and every service I get, like plumbing-work and such… So I try to fix whatever I’m capable of around my small house and save for the rest. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining. I have enough for my reasonable needs. I’ve never been a ’shop-aholic’ and I don’t believe in wasting. I only buy what I need, and use what I buy. (At least, more often than not, although I must admit to an occasional unnecessary whim…)
Now I really must get to sleep. g’night.
August 1, 2007 at 6:44 am |
“If a lack of housing is an issue, then private enterprise usually moves in a builds more, thereby creating jobs, and filling a need within the community, or at least that’s been my experience here in the good ole USofA, even if it’s ‘affordable housing’ subdivisions or groups like Habitat for Humanity.”
But that’s exactly the point. The market can’t be relied on for that, not unregulated anyway.
I’m not a doctrinaire socialist. I actually to believe that the market has an important role to play in our economy, as it is very good at creating wealth.
However, the market is not, contrary to the musings of the free market ideologues, the panacea for everything. As I said, its good at creating wealth. At reducing poverty, not so much.
I am not ideologically committed to either extreme, and believe that there is a place for government intervention where it is necessary to compensate for market failures.
August 1, 2007 at 4:45 pm |
Well put, Stephen. That’s the way I see it too. A middle road between the free market and government intervention.
August 1, 2007 at 11:16 pm |
V,
To address the ‘urban development’ concerns you mentioned, that’s one of the issues that cities all over both of our countries have been dealing with since the concept of the incorporated city came about. The local politicians need to generate tax dollars to run the city, and the easiest way to do that is to entice businesses and developers to build office buildings and upper scale residential dwellings as these bring in a much higher return in tax dollars per square foot of property than a simple single family home, and if they have to put in single family dwellings, the more expensive the dwelling, the higher the taxes the city can hit the owner with. I’m sure you already knew this (even if only intuitively), but the fact is that if a city is going to provide all of the services and entitlements that you Liberals want, they not only have to get the money from somewhere, but they have to ensure that it will continue to come in for the next few decades. Basically, and this isn’t a personal ‘attack’, merely an observation from a lifetime of rather confused observation of the Liberal, y’all complain about a lack of entitlements, and constantly push for more of them, yet you complain about the way the Liberal officials that you pushed to have elected go about financing those same said entitlements! Now, excuse me for asking an obvious question, but isn’t the concept of “cause and effect” any part of the equation when you’re considering all of these programs to begin with? You wanted Socialized Medicine, you got it, and now you’re paying for it with your GST and PST. You wanted the rest of your favorite give away programs, you got them, and now you’re paying for them. Another obvious question, don’t they teach basic economics in school in Canada? I’m not trying to be a raving ass about this V, but to me it’s blatantly obvious why you have the taxes that you do, to pay for all of the programs you requested and received, so you have nobody to blame but yourselves, and as my grandfather used to say “sympathy is a word in the dictionary between shit and syphallis”!
Here’s a little tidbit of factual information from your neighbors to the South, at the current time, we spend approximately 60% of our $2.9 TRILLION Federal Budget on entitlement programs! Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC, FHA, HUD, Head Start, etc., etc., etc., and every year these costs go up, and every year Congress has to find more tax dollars to pay for them. Now, granting that $500 Bn of this is directly tied to people who have worked their entire lives and are now collecting the benefits guaranteed to them in return for stealing money out of thier checks every week, but that only accounts for less than 1/3 of those costs, the rest, to be blunt about it, are going to people who have never done a damn thing, nor contributed one whit, and probably never will, to the system they’re leeching off of, and frankly, I’m ready to kick them off the welfare wagon and make them start taking care for themselves (or starve, and I really don’t give a damn which)! Is that harsh, probably, but as I stated earlier, it’s the only way people learn to care for themselves, is by being force to care for themselves, and if we can get rid of those damned leeches, it would free up more than enough money to take care of those who honestly can’t care for themselves and deserve our heartfelt assistance, and still allow for a healthy tax cut for the rest of us. I’m just sick and tired of busting my butt day in and day out for decades, and not even taking anything that could pass for a proper vacation, and having money stolen out of my pocket to support a bunch of lazy assed good for nothing leeches who’ve never worked a day in their lives! It’s time that the mamma bird kicked the chick out of the nest, and whether it flies or dies is entirely up to it.
As far as government spending for government officials, I agree that spending cuts are most assuredly in order, but probably not in the same areas that you’d cut them. I can’t speak for how it’s done in Canada, but here, our Congressmen and other high government officials are generally required, by law, to be escourted, in armored vehicles, during their official duties. Even when they’re back in their home districts and driving their own POV’s (personally owned vehicles) you can rest assured that Secret Service is close behind. All of this close in security is a direct result of the terrorist attacks beginning in the late 60’s, and is now SOP (standard operating procedure). Now, as we discussed in another thread, I know a bit about security for high profile officials, so I understand the necessity for those measures (although there are a few in Washington that I’d just as soon see dropped off naked and alone in the middle of an Al Qaeda recruitment party!). When it comes to their official salaries, if I had my way, that would be directly tied to the median income of the people they represent! If the average income in a Congressman or Senators district is $200,000 or $20,000 a year, then THAT’S what they get paid, PERIOD! If they want a pay raise, then they’re going to have to REALLY do their job and get the economy going for their constituants. Now of course there would have to be a fixed rate stipend to pay for mandatory expenses related to all of their official duties, but other than that, why should someone who was elected to ‘represent’ a group of people make so much more than the very people they’re allegedly representing? If you want to see some people get off their butts and REALLY get to work, tell them they’re only getting paid for what they do, and not for talking about it. Another area that I would change is that sitting elected officials cannot engage in any campaigning during the official session they are currently occupying. Right now we’ve got over a dozen people running for President in an election that’s still over a year away, and they’re doing it while Congress is still in session! In my mind, they owe the government a refund for all of the time they’re out campaigning and not serving the purpose they were elected to perform! HELL, if you or I were out interviewing for a job while we were ‘on the clock’ with our present employer, don’t you think we’d be UN-employed pretty damned quick?
August 1, 2007 at 11:38 pm |
Stephen,
The market IS regulated! It’s regulated by the free market, which dictates that you build what the market wants. You can build all of the one bedroom houses you want, but if nobody wants a one bedroom house, you’ve just spent a bunch of money for nothing. That’s where market research comes into play, and if the current market in an area is for upscale condominiums, then that’s what builders and developers are going to put up, if the market is for single family residences, then that’s what’s going to be built. Now, as I mentioned in the post above, it y’all are willing to absorb the increase in taxes to pay for yet another subsidized housing development, then I’m sure your local government will be MORE than happy to take your money, but I wouldn’t bet on getting the ‘return on investment’ that you anticipate.
As far as the market reducing poverty, perhaps if y’all would give our system a try you’d find that it actually does a VERY good job at it. The free market, by it’s very nature wants to produce as much as possible, and in order to do that, they have to employ as many people as possible, and as we all learned in Economics 101, when supply is low and demand is high, prices increase. The same thing applies to wages, when you have low unemployment and high demand for workers, employers have to offer higher wages in order to draw the better employees. We here in the States learned all about that the hard way during the Carter administration when his policies all but devistated our economy and it took President Reagan (Ronaldus Maximus) and his “Reaganomics” to get things rolling again, and as a result of “trickle down economics” we enjoyed one of the greatest eras of prosperity since the 1950’s, but then President Clinton came along and did everything he could to screw it up.
I’m generally not inclined to believe in “market failure” so much as government regulation, meddling and interfering that causes undesirable periods in a system that generally works just fine. This is not to say that some regulation and oversight isn’t necessary, afterall, we don’t need to revisit the problems of the latter part of the 19th Century, but the more the government regulation and interference that business has to contend with, the more prices go up, and the less inclined business is to expand, which reduces the number of employees and the salaries those employees can make.
As I’ve said before, if government is the answer, it’s got to be a really stupid question.
August 2, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
Str8shooter: I agree with your suggestions about having elected officials’ salaries more compatible with those of the people in the districts who elected them. Excellent idea, as is the one about not campaigning when they should be doing the work for which they were elected.
August 2, 2007 at 10:51 pm |
Thanks V.,
It would appear that we have more in common that originally thought. See, conservatives aren’t ALL bad, we just sometimes have to yell at you long enough to make you see beyond your jerk-knee Liberal political prejudices (LOL)!
August 3, 2007 at 2:45 am |
LOL !!
August 3, 2007 at 2:49 am |
P.S. to S.: remember to tell me if/when you are running for Council, ok? Maybe I can give you a few suggestions… ? (LOL!)