Anonymous wrote:

I totally support you on hard work. I totally agree that we need to instill a sense of taking responsibility for ourselves, looking after ourselves and working hard to improve our situation in life. That's totally on us as individuals, I totally agree. It likewise frustrates me to see young, able-bodied individuals moping around underemployed, just looking to scam benefits and coast at the taxpayer's expense rather than working to try and get ahead. But beyond that, you've gone deep into conservative hyperbole and you need to strike a lot of what you said because it's not entirely valid. First, "you didn't build that" isn't at all intended to demean hard work, and you have a totally wrong spin on what's meant by that. It's about getting people to acknowledge that you didn't build it in a vacuum. Nobody in America made it 100% on their own. You can't build a successful business without the infrastructure that so many conservatives want to take for granted, whether roads, bridges, internet, import/export and things that the government helps provide, or stable banks and available, low-interest loans, et cetera - also things that the government helps to ensure. Second, we DO in fact have a serious problem of wealth inequality in America which among other things makes it harder and harder for entrepreneurs to succeed. The mom-and-pop brick and mortar shops get killed off by the big box Walmarts. It's hard to compete against online retailers, et cetera. And yes, many of those who are successful did in fact either get a leg up thanks to big inheritances or a lucky break. It's a lot harder to compete in America today than it was decades ago, yet most conservatives are older and don't realize things have changed over the past several decades. Likewise, since the Reagan era, we have the issue of trickle-down economic policies which favors the wealthy and large corporations, which has caused the middle class to be decimated, allowed small businesses to be undermined, while the rich get richer and big corporations get more powerful. Nothing ever trickles down. That's failed conservative economic policy in action. And along with this is the lack of revenue to keep our roads and bridges from crumbling. Just look at what "low taxes" and "limited government" has done in places like Kansas - utter disaster, put them deep into debt, and everything's falling apart.

Really? I need to strike what I said because you do not agree it's valid? That is the very ESSENCE of entitled thinking. You are assuming that only government can provide us with the tools necessary to build wealth. That is not so. Conservatives do believe in infrastructure - in fact, the infrastructure we need is outlined in the Constitution. But guess what? Walt Disney built the original Disneyland in about 6 months because the cumbersome restrictions of government as it exists today does not exist. I looked into putting a pool on my property. Fairfax County wants 20K in permits. 20K! Go five miles to Loudoun County, that restriction does not exist.

You want to talk wealth inequality? Clinton wore a very expensive Armani blouse while she lectured the rest of us about wealth inequality. How do government elites get that rich? We know how athletes do - they have a skill they've worked hard at, and people are willing to pay money to watch them win. Movie stars? They have a craft they've honed and people are willing to pay money to see their movies. Clinton has been in government all her life. That should give you pause.

Right now we are in a flat economy. Have been for how many years? What did the stimulus stimulate? Where are the shovel-ready jobs? Why on earth should we throw more money at something that already failed?

I suggest you look at Venezuela. That nightmare is the fruit of large progressive government control.

I totally support you on hard work. I totally agree that we need to instill a sense of taking responsibility for ourselves, looking after ourselves and working hard to improve our situation in life. That's totally on us as individuals, I totally agree. It likewise frustrates me to see young, able-bodied individuals moping around underemployed, just looking to scam benefits and coast at the taxpayer's expense rather than working to try and get ahead. But beyond that, you've gone deep into conservative hyperbole and you need to strike a lot of what you said because it's not entirely valid. First, "you didn't build that" isn't at all intended to demean hard work, and you have a totally wrong spin on what's meant by that. It's about getting people to acknowledge that you didn't build it in a vacuum. Nobody in America made it 100% on their own. You can't build a successful business without the infrastructure that so many conservatives want to take for granted, whether roads, bridges, internet, import/export and things that the government helps provide, or stable banks and available, low-interest loans, et cetera - also things that the government helps to ensure. Second, we DO in fact have a serious problem of wealth inequality in America which among other things makes it harder and harder for entrepreneurs to succeed. The mom-and-pop brick and mortar shops get killed off by the big box Walmarts. It's hard to compete against online retailers, et cetera. And yes, many of those who are successful did in fact either get a leg up thanks to big inheritances or a lucky break. It's a lot harder to compete in America today than it was decades ago, yet most conservatives are older and don't realize things have changed over the past several decades. Likewise, since the Reagan era, we have the issue of trickle-down economic policies which favors the wealthy and large corporations, which has caused the middle class to be decimated, allowed small businesses to be undermined, while the rich get richer and big corporations get more powerful. Nothing ever trickles down. That's failed conservative economic policy in action. And along with this is the lack of revenue to keep our roads and bridges from crumbling. Just look at what "low taxes" and "limited government" has done in places like Kansas - utter disaster, put them deep into debt, and everything's falling apart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

What's your best guess?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.

People keep ignoring the diversity argument. Having diverse communities makes us as a city stronger. Even if it becomes as bad as DC general, which I hope it doesn't, the impact from the diversity could justify it if for nothing else that the restorative justice and addressing the institutional racism in the system. Our political institutions keep the poor and people of color out of places like Ward 3 and its long overdue to let others in.

Well my African American neighbors here in ward 3 strongly disagree. And I am the child of foreigners who arrived in the US impoverished and built a life here while raising their family here. I have been very welcomed into ward 3. "Restorative justice" to displace people to a new area for a maximum of 120 days, with difficult cross town transport options and little hope of being even moderately well run. That's laughable. You're simply pissed at the wealth disparity and value "sticking it the rich" vindictively is more important than finding a plan that might actually work. You don't give a darn about the homeless families, or whether they or ward three permanent residents experience greater "diversity." Spiteful much?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.

People keep ignoring the diversity argument. Having diverse communities makes us as a city stronger. Even if it becomes as bad as DC general, which I hope it doesn't, the impact from the diversity could justify it if for nothing else that the restorative justice and addressing the institutional racism in the system. Our political institutions keep the poor and people of color out of places like Ward 3 and its long overdue to let others in.

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

Anonymous wrote:^ Here's one thing I don't get - that it's mostly AA, and that we also have a disproportionately high unemployement/underemployment rate among AAs in DC, with so many teetering on the brink of homelessness/financial disaster. Yet it seems that on so many construction sites, in so many restaurants, hotels, et cetera you will see a lot of latino workers. In many cases they came 2,000 miles to a city they don't know, barely able to speak the language, an likely not able to produce evidence of a diploma, et cetera. Yet they were able to find work, whereas people who grew up here, who know the city, who speak the language evidently can't seem to manage to find work? Likewise, the latinos manage to find places where they can afford to live - and in most cases aren't even eligible for subsidies, et cetera. Yet the DC-born and raised can't seem to find their own asses with both hands?

Anonymous wrote:In the end, smaller shelters are safer for these vulnerable families. That's really it. Would you send your kid to a 2,000 student elementary school? No. You would say it is too big. A very large homeless shelter is 100x worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, without blaming the homeless here, have you all considered that the reason for putting a shelter in Ward 3 is for basic fairness for people who live in other wards?

Go ahead and acknowledge all the terrible things you want about the homeless.

Then ask yourself: if they are so bad, is it fair that they all go in one area of town - whether it is Ward 7, Ward 5, or Ward 3.

Of course not. If you believe that a homeless shelter will cause problems - crime, drug dealers, school overcrowding, whatever the concern may be - then no taxpaying, homeowning, citizens of the District - regardless of what ward they live in - should be forced to deal with 100% of the negative externalities.

There is no perfect solution here, but given the above, the most equitable solution is to spread out the homeless families in small shelters all over the city.

So reframe your thinking - putting a shelter in Ward 3 is not about what the homeless families want (or arguably about what they need), but it is about basic equity and about what taxpayers and homeowners all over the city want - to not have 100% of the burden of the homeless in their community.

Sorry, but how is it good public policy to take extreme social problems, including drug abuse, street crime, etc., and introduce them into heretofore relatively safe areas that haven't had those problems? It's like saying that since Ward 8 is plagued with a lot of violent crime, DC should provide free Uber rides to street criminals so they can ply their predatory trade in neighborhoods with low crime rates, just to spread crime around in the name of "fairness". (That is, assuming that the Uber drivers aren't robbed on the way across town.) It's really a hare-brained scheme, motivated by DC's version of the politics of resentment, Bowser's way of stoking the base. But not even our former Mayor-for-Life tried anything quite so foolish as this.

People keep ignoring the diversity argument. Having diverse communities makes us as a city stronger. Even if it becomes as bad as DC general, which I hope it doesn't, the impact from the diversity could justify it if for nothing else that the restorative justice and addressing the institutional racism in the system. Our political institutions keep the poor and people of color out of places like Ward 3 and its long overdue to let others in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

I missed that part of the thread. What did people say?

Demeaned him/her. Basic sarcastic, mean shit people here say when they know they have no real retort. Implications that his/her hard work was not a factor.

OK, that wasn't right. But I still don't understand how helping the homeless demeans your hard work. I've worked hard (and I've also been very lucky). I'm fiscally comfortable. I don't find that helping people in need demeans my hard work - the opposite - I feel that it glorifies my hard work. My hard work means that I can live a comfortable life myself, and still be able to pay taxes and be charitable toward those in need.

And if people are mean and sarcastic, so what? It won't hurt me, I'm secure about how I got to where I am, and I know there are people that are going through a lot worse than anonymous mean sarcastic people saying things to them.

Look back at your statement and count how many personal pronouns are used. Me. My. The problem lies there. The general mentality of telling people 'you didn't build that', 'luck got you there', etc, tells people that hard work is not the answer. Completely wrong message if you want people to lift themselves out of poverty. If, however, you are in control and want to maintain that control, it's exactly the right message to send - for you.

You are also talking about personally helping the homeless. If you want to donate fine. Have an unoccupied home? Feel free to allow a homeless family stay there on your dime.

The problem here is government officials taking person A's money presumably to help person B, and purposefully hurting what person B has accomplished for him/herself in the process, by diminishing his/her return on investment (real estate). Putting a homeless shelter in a residential neighborhood hurts property values. You can read all the self-serving government reports you want, but a realtor will tell you otherwise. And they would be correct. Unless that shelter is properly run, with such a full support network that it remains essentially invisible in the community (i.e. no crime, clean, etc), you will ALWAYS get negative effects. And there is absolutely NO indication these shelters will be even built properly, never mind run properly.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ That's purposefully hurting what person A has accomplished for him/herself

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You area all now seeing the problems with 'fairness'. Fairness actually means bringing those who did everything right, down, to equalize those who haven't. That's not actually fair, now is it?

There is an individual who did everything right - who worked hard, scrapped, saved - to ensure he/she would not continue the poverty cycle. Instead of lifting that person up as an example, the 'fairness advocates' did their best to demean that individual's accomplishments.

This type of progressive liberalism only works when the group buys into it or when it's forced on them. The pushback you see is not due to 'racism', 'bias', etc. It's due to INDIVIDUALS who do not want to participate in their own demise. This is not selfish or racist, or whatever other names you want to throw out there. It's due to the basic UNfairness of the program overall - the stripping away of individual rights for the 'common good'. If that sounds a bit like Communism? Well....it is....

Love this line- "it's due to individuals who don't want to participate in their on demise." God bless you, sir

Thank you See what a cup of coffee can do? LOL.

I'm tired of success being demeaned, and even worse, success that comes from one's own efforts.

I don't understand. How do you see a desire to help the homeless as demeaning your success?

The placing of homeless shelters in wealthy areas in the name of 'diversity' will affect property values.

OK, let's accept that this is true. How does it "demean" your success?

The definition of "demean" is to "cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for (someone or something)."

When you say that a homeless shelter demeans your success, are you just saying that it diminish your financial well-being? or are you trying to say something else?

It diminishes the importance of hard work as a factor in one's success. Note the way others in this thread treated the individual who worked his/her ass off to get out of poverty.

I missed that part of the thread. What did people say?

Demeaned him/her. Basic sarcastic, mean shit people here say when they know they have no real retort. Implications that his/her hard work was not a factor.

OK, that wasn't right. But I still don't understand how helping the homeless demeans your hard work. I've worked hard (and I've also been very lucky). I'm fiscally comfortable. I don't find that helping people in need demeans my hard work - the opposite - I feel that it glorifies my hard work. My hard work means that I can live a comfortable life myself, and still be able to pay taxes and be charitable toward those in need.

And if people are mean and sarcastic, so what? It won't hurt me, I'm secure about how I got to where I am, and I know there are people that are going through a lot worse than anonymous mean sarcastic people saying things to them.