A reflection of the effects of Section 8 housing from a Memphis veteran cop

[werepossum]

LOL

SNIP
Myth 10: Support for affirmative action means support for preferential selection procedures that favor unqualified candidates over qualified candidates.
Actually, most supporters of affirmative action oppose this type of preferential selection. Preferential selection procedures can be ordered along the following continuum:

Selection among equally qualified candidates. The mildest form of affirmative action selection occurs when a female or minority candidate is chosen from a pool of equally qualified applicants (e.g., students with identical college entrance scores). Survey research suggests that three-quarters of the public does not see this type of affirmative action as discriminatory (Roper Center for Public Opinion, 1995e).

Selection among comparable candidates. A somewhat stronger form occurs when female or minority candidates are roughly comparable to other candidates (e.g., their college entrance scores are lower, but not by a significant amount). The logic here is similar to the logic of selecting among equally qualified candidates; all that is needed is an understanding that, for example, predictions based on an SAT score of 620 are virtually indistinguishable from predictions based on an SAT score of 630.


Selection among unequal candidates. A still stronger form of affirmative action occurs when qualified female or minority candidates are chosen over candidates whose records are better by a substantial amount.


Selection among qualified and unqualified candidates. The strongest form of preferential selection occurs when unqualified female or minority members are chosen over other candidates who are qualified. Although affirmative action is sometimes mistakenly equated with this form of preferential treatment, federal regulations explicitly prohibit affirmative action programs in which unqualified or unneeded employees are hired (Bureau of National Affairs, 1979).

I think most Americans still support the first and perhaps the second where there is significant statistical under-representation, but certainly not the third or fourth which have the affect of weakening the company or other entity. The first two are roughly neutral in affect on the company or other entity. Having experienced reverse racism I can say the first two are okay by me - I experienced being the inevitable collateral damage but I'm still doing fine and can still support the first two methods until minority participation is perhaps a standard deviation off theoretical. (I can also attest that affirmative action is also used to hide other motivations. For instance, the training class for which I was unable to even get an application, not being a minority, was not mostly minority; there were evidently lots of relatives of influential TVA employees given slots too.)

The third and fourth are problematic. My preference would be not lowering standards, but providing remedies for the underlying problems. If black kids can't meet the test scores to get into colleges in a reasonably representational number then we need to throw additional resources into predominantly black schools or perhaps have a summer long or even year long remedial training program that remedies the specific problems. Ideally such programs would produce kids (or firefighters, teachers, whatever) that are above average so that the people produced would be in demand rather than struggling to do tasks for which they are not qualified. That way society, the company or agency in question, and the country are strengthened rather than weakened in return for the additional resources.

Although federal regulations may prohibit the fourth type of affirmative action hiring, failure to meet quotas is today regarded as evidence of bad faith and subject to sanctions by the federal government. A demonstrable lack of qualified minority candidates will not keep one safe from fines and other punishments.

 

[blackangst1]

Same thing happened when Daley pushed to get Chicago "cleaned up"...suburbs took the hit.

Until the demographic majority in these shitholes starts being brutally honest with the people that live there, and we start almost forcing decent paying manufacturing jobs into these communities, it's going to continue to be like this.

Pretending otherwise just prolongs the pain.

Chuck

You see this as a viable plan? Could you elaborate on how you would accomplish "forcing" a company to build/do business in an area that they dont want to be in?

 

[blackangst1]

I think most Americans still support the first and perhaps the second where there is significant statistical under-representation, but certainly not the third or fourth which have the affect of weakening the company or other entity. The first two are roughly neutral in affect on the company or other entity. Having experienced reverse racism I can say the first two are okay by me - I experienced being the inevitable collateral damage but I'm still doing fine and can still support the first two methods until minority participation is perhaps a standard deviation off theoretical. (I can also attest that affirmative action is also used to hide other motivations. For instance, the training class for which I was unable to even get an application, not being a minority, was not mostly minority; there were evidently lots of relatives of influential TVA employees given slots too.)

The third and fourth are problematic. My preference would be not lowering standards, but providing remedies for the underlying problems. If black kids can't meet the test scores to get into colleges in a reasonably representational number then we need to throw additional resources into predominantly black schools or perhaps have a summer long or even year long remedial training program that remedies the specific problems. Ideally such programs would produce kids (or firefighters, teachers, whatever) that are above average so that the people produced would be in demand rather than struggling to do tasks for which they are not qualified. That way society, the company or agency in question, and the country are strengthened rather than weakened in return for the additional resources.

Although federal regulations may prohibit the fourth type of affirmative action hiring, failure to meet quotas is today regarded as evidence of bad faith and subject to sanctions by the federal government. A demonstrable lack of qualified minority candidates will not keep one safe from fines and other punishments.

I agree completely with your second paragraph. Any attempt at lowering standards will have backlash. Actually, it already has.

Students parent: It really seems like teachers nowadays arent as good or intelligent as they used to be.
School administrator: They arent. We had to lower our standards to make room for those who couldnt pass the original test.
Students parent: But why? I want my child to have a better education!
School administrator: So do I, but unfortunately the government thinks the standards arent low enough for those who only pass high school with a 7th grade math and 9th grade reading proficiency going into college.

A terrible catch 22. The answer is tightening standards for education and perhaps making more resources available to those who need it, not lowering the requirements. (Only after determining resources available arent cutting the mustard. If students arent taking advantage of resources already available, that's their fault, not the schools.)

 

[werepossum]

I agree completely with your second paragraph. Any attempt at lowering standards will have backlash. Actually, it already has.

Students parent: It really seems like teachers nowadays arent as good or intelligent as they used to be.
School administrator: They arent. We had to lower our standards to make room for those who couldnt pass the original test.
Students parent: But why? I want my child to have a better education!
School administrator: So do I, but unfortunately the government thinks the standards arent low enough for those who only pass high school with a 7th grade math and 9th grade reading proficiency going into college.

A terrible catch 22. The answer is tightening standards for education and perhaps making more resources available to those who need it, not lowering the requirements. (Only after determining resources available arent cutting the mustard. If students arent taking advantage of resources already available, that's their fault, not the schools.)

I'm reminded of the principal who was taking his proficiency test for the third and last time. He passed it, doing so well that the administrators became suspicious and reviewed the video tape. Turned out he had payed a homeless man to take it for him, because if he failed it three times he would lose his job. That's the kind of human debris that standard hiring practices evidently don't weed out. (I have no idea if he was a minority or in any way benefited from affirmative action, just responding to your last paragraph.)

 

[theeedude]

Then you're an idiot for failing to realize that you could better provide for the people you wish to help by helping them yourself rather than giving your money to the government, letting the government take its cut (overhead), then giving it back to the people you want the money to go to.
You're building inefficiency into the system and think that this is a great thing. I thought you said you were an engineer. Would you build inefficiency into any system you work on as an engineer? I'm an engineer too, and I would punch someone like you in the throat if they told me the best way to design my process was to build in an operation that increases the system inefficiency.

You are speaking form government = inefficiency IDEOLOGY. Don't confuse ideology with a fact. Like I said, I want this to be available to everyone, not just my grandparents. I don't have time to go around seeing who needs housing assistance and who doesn't, and reading through applications, etc.
Whoever you are going to pay to provide these services is going to add overhead, but as we see with Medicare vs private insurers, government can often add the lowest overhead. Private charities also often have very high administrative overhead, hell, my local hospital is a so called "non-profit organization" but they charge a tonne of money for even basic stuff.

Your appeal to emotion aside... Well, that's all you had there. Moving on.
See above. Your personal attacks are especially hollow in light of reality.

Again, you are confusing ideology with reality. But I expect nothing more from a conservative.

 

[CycloWizard]

You are speaking form government = inefficiency IDEOLOGY. Don't confuse ideology with a fact. Like I said, I want this to be available to everyone, not just my grandparents. I don't have time to go around seeing who needs housing assistance and who doesn't, and reading through applications, etc.
Whoever you are going to pay to provide these services is going to add overhead, but as we see with Medicare vs private insurers, government can often add the lowest overhead. Private charities also often have very high administrative overhead, hell, my local hospital is a so called "non-profit organization" but they charge a tonne of money for even basic stuff.

Hospitals charge so much for basic services because the government forces them to treat those who can't pay. To balance their budget (something government doesn't have to do), they necessarily raise prices on those who can pay. You don't realize that Medicare keeps its costs down by installing artificial price ceilings and even simply not paying doctors who have rendered covered treatment, again something the private sector could never get away with. Do you think this behavior is ok, let alone desirable?

Again, you are confusing ideology with reality. But I expect nothing more from a conservative.

Yes, I'm afraid logic is rapidly becoming an element of only conservative ideology.

 

[CitizenKain]

Hospitals charge so much for basic services because the government forces them to treat those who can't pay. To balance their budget (something government doesn't have to do), they necessarily raise prices on those who can pay. You don't realize that Medicare keeps its costs down by installing artificial price ceilings and even simply not paying doctors who have rendered covered treatment, again something the private sector could never get away with. Do you think this behavior is ok, let alone desirable?

Yes, I'm afraid logic is rapidly becoming an element of only conservative ideology.

Do you think it is better for someone to bleed out in the street compared to balancing a budget?

 

[theeedude]

Hospitals charge so much for basic services because the government forces them to treat those who can't pay. To balance their budget (something government doesn't have to do), they necessarily raise prices on those who can pay.

That only applies to ERs, I am talking about a clinic that doesn't have ER. Noone is forcing them to treat anyone.

You don't realize that Medicare keeps its costs down by installing artificial price ceilings and even simply not paying doctors who have rendered covered treatment, again something the private sector could never get away with. Do you think this behavior is ok, let alone desirable?

So are you saying Medicare is not spending enough taxpayer money?
Also, how does any of this impact the fact that Medicare's actual overhead is lower? If we assume as you claim that Medicare doesn't spend as much as you like, they still spend a much higher percentage of what they take in on actual health care than private insurers. I sure hope you weren't serious when you said you were an engineer, seems like you have problems with fairly basic math.

Yes, I'm afraid logic is rapidly becoming an element of only conservative ideology.

If you want to keep deluding yourself in this manner, I won't stop you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Do you think it is better for someone to bleed out in the street compared to balancing a budget?

Do you realize that everyone is going to die, regardless of how much money you throw into their healthcare? This is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not. Until you realize that this is reality, your arguments will continue to be predicated on appeals to emotion rather than anything useful, concrete, or actionable.

 

[theeedude]

Do you realize that everyone is going to die, regardless of how much money you throw into their healthcare? This is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not. Until you realize that this is reality, your arguments will continue to be predicated on appeals to emotion rather than anything useful, concrete, or actionable.

LOL, so why do you go to a doctor at all? You are going to die anyways. Do you have some emo reason?

 

[CycloWizard]

That only applies to ERs, I am talking about a clinic that doesn't have ER. Noone is forcing them to treat anyone.

Caveats, blah blah blah. You don't want healthcare for the price of admission then don't use it. It's a free country. At least for now.

So are you saying Medicare is not spending enough taxpayer money?
Also, how does any of this impact the fact that Medicare's actual overhead is lower? If we assume as you claim that Medicare doesn't spend as much as you like, they still spend a much higher percentage of what they take in on actual health care than private insurers. I sure hope you weren't serious when you said you were an engineer, seems like you have problems with fairly basic math.

Medicare deflates their costs by breaking the law. It's a simple fact. You can try to twist it however you want, but the bottom line is that this is hardly a basis for comparison with private enterprise. I could start a business with 1e-10% overhead if my only cost was bullets and I just went around shooting everyone I see and take their money and possessions. Does that make my "business" better than, say, McDonalds? Who do you think you're kidding?

If you want to keep deluding yourself in this manner, I won't stop you.

So, by pointing out that your argument is predicated on a logical fallacy, I am deluding myself? No. I'm stating a fact. You are more than welcome to your opinions, but not your own facts. If your argument contradicts facts and logic, I'm going to call you out. Your only rebuttal to this point was to call me conservative. Oooooooooooooooh, scary!

 

[theeedude]

Caveats, blah blah blah. You don't want healthcare for the price of admission then don't use it. It's a free country. At least for now.

Oh, so if something shoots your argument full of holes, it's "caveats, blah blah blah?" Got it.

Medicare deflates their costs by breaking the law. It's a simple fact. You can try to twist it however you want, but the bottom line is that this is hardly a basis for comparison with private enterprise. I could start a business with 1e-10% overhead if my only cost was bullets and I just went around shooting everyone I see and take their money and possessions. Does that make my "business" better than, say, McDonalds? Who do you think you're kidding?

Actually if Medicare deflates their health care costs by "breaking the law," as you slander them, it would make it harder for it to keep a higher payout ratio than private insurers, not easier.

So, by pointing out that your argument is predicated on a logical fallacy, I am deluding myself? No. I'm stating a fact. You are more than welcome to your opinions, but not your own facts. If your argument contradicts facts and logic, I'm going to call you out. Your only rebuttal to this point was to call me conservative. Oooooooooooooooh, scary!

You are deluding yourself if you think you can think logically. That is your main problem, being a conservative is just a side effect of that.

 

[CycloWizard]

Oh, so if something shoots your argument full of holes, it's "caveats, blah blah blah?" Got it.

You never shot holes in anything. Your entire approach here has been one diversion after the other. When I point out the flaws in your argument, your counter is to change what your original argument was in the first place. For example,
You: A is B.
Me: No, A is C.
You: I was talking about a special case of A. That special case of A is B.
I suppose this is a great approach for you if your goal is to try to frustrate me, but I'm a stubborn SOB and like to point out idiocy.

Actually if Medicare deflates their health care costs by "breaking the law," as you slander them, it would make it harder for it to keep a higher payout ratio than private insurers, not easier.

Medicare has been found guilty of such offenses in numerous states, especially Indiana where the law requires payout within 60 days, yet Medicare typically waits 3-6 months from the filing date. And who is "them" that I'm slandering? Do you really think the Medicare administration follows all of the relevant laws? The laws governing healthcare are so convoluted that no one could follow them all, even if they wanted to do so. But I digress, as this is simply another diversion of yours away from the fact that you're one of these guys who wants to take my money to give it to someone else in order to satisfy your delusions of charity.

You are deluding yourself if you think you can think logically. That is your main problem, being a conservative is just a side effect of that.

Please show me one instance in this thread of my utilizing a logical fallacy - find one fact to support your personal attacks.

 

[theeedude]

You never shot holes in anything. Your entire approach here has been one diversion after the other. When I point out the flaws in your argument, your counter is to change what your original argument was in the first place. For example,
You: A is B.
Me: No, A is C.
You: I was talking about a special case of A. That special case of A is B.
I suppose this is a great approach for you if your goal is to try to frustrate me, but I'm a stubborn SOB and like to point out idiocy.

Nope, your argument was that the cost was high because hospital had to treat everyone, I pointed out that this hospital does not run an ER, and does not have to treat anyone by law. So your argument that it was the mandate causing the high cost is shot, sorry bud, because even without mandate, the cost is high.

Medicare has been found guilty of such offenses in numerous states, especially Indiana where the law requires payout within 60 days, yet Medicare typically waits 3-6 months from the filing date. And who is "them" that I'm slandering? Do you really think the Medicare administration follows all of the relevant laws? The laws governing healthcare are so convoluted that no one could follow them all, even if they wanted to do so. But I digress, as this is simply another diversion of yours away from the fact that you're one of these guys who wants to take my money to give it to someone else in order to satisfy your delusions of charity.

You accused them of breaking the law, burden of proof is on you, or it's slander. Also, federal Medicare law supersedes state laws, you are obviously ignorant of that too.

Please show me one instance in this thread of my utilizing a logical fallacy - find one fact to support your personal attacks.

Read above.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Stop the presses, we have a new observation: there's a correlation between poverty and crime.

More efforts, not fewer, are needed. Is there fair access to good education that takes decades to pay off for society? Is there income opportunity in an age of wealth concentration? Was there drug treatment for people movin with drug problems? Were social services monitoring and involved supporting the trnsitions? Perhaps none of this?

Of course the OP is happy for the simple answer that trashes millions of people. The 'keep poverty going, centuries of discrimination and racism are best allowed to continue effects like ghettoes' answer.

I'd be willing to bet money he's not a poor minority person living in a ghetto. Hence his "make this annoying problem go away where I can ignore it".

Last night, Jon Stewart played a Repulbican leader saying 'I don'd mind gays, I just don't want them shoving it down my throat'. Apart from the humor hy he played it, it's the same mentaliity.

'Those people' are second class, and I should not be annoyed by them. I'm happy for blacks to do well, but only if it's without any bother for them to overcome the effects of past discrimination.

Between the costs of increasing equal opportunity, and leaving them with the roadblocks of the history of discrimination, easy call - they can suck it. I've supported the end of segregation - that's plenty.

Let's say the OP is right, that there's a correlation between crime and section 8 housing, without the other supporting efforts. How many section 8 tenants are behaving criminally? Is it 5%? 15%?

He has no idea from the post - but he's ready to say 'screw them all' and put the innocents 'back into a cesspool of poverty and crime where they came from'.

Is there much clearer example of someone blinded in the arrogance or undeserved advantage? His class superiority dehumanizes the others so that if they're any inconvenience, they're worthless. Suck it.

This is a form of racism, of bigotry about race and more, the lack of any empathy for a group of society, zero interest or concern about their well being, their history, challenges, justice.

They're just an annoyance. They should be off, not seen, in miserable situations, not bothering him, their betters. He can chant ideology about 'equal opportunity' and 'blame the victim' to sleep at night.

It's their own fault. No concern.

Why is it in the vast majority of School districts the highest percentage of drop outs are poor?
Why is it that in most cities the majority of criminals are poor? They're poor because they make bad decisions. They It just happens that a lot of poor black people make bad decisions and blame it on racisms and damn whitey. Never mind all the poor white people that live in trailers instead of ghettos, or the poor mexicans that live 20 to a 1 bed room apartment. If you want to get out of poverty you can do it. It doesn't matter what color your skin is. All that matters is your desire to better yourself.
Want to know why Detroit has rampant drug problems and dealers making tons of cash, but they all live in shitty houses? It's because they are fucking dumber than a sack of shit and would rather live in a roach infested hell hole and go out and blow all their money on liquor and women. Which is what they do. BAD DECISIONS. That's why they lead the life they do. They have every opportunity to succeed. The time of them blaming others for their problems is over and played out. It's time to make them take the responsibility for themselves and for them to take care of themselves.
I grew up poor and most of the time we didn't have 2 nickles to rub together. Now I own a house in a nice quiet neighborhood have nice things, and my kids go to a premiere school. I was able to make it out of the poor house growing up because I didn't want to live a life of poverty and crap.
So I say, fuck the poor and let them work themselves out of the hell hole they have dug.