Republicans And Living On The Public Dole

I was speaking with a Republican man just the other day. He was proud to be a very rich man and said that all the lower class people should work so they would not have to rely on public help from the government. He did not want his taxes going up all the time. And so, I asked him how he got so rich? He told me that he managed to buy a cheap house and rented out to poor people on the Section 8 program. He said on that program the government guaranteed the rent for the poor renters, and he could rely on the government check every month. After a few years, he used that government money to buy more houses and rent them out on the Section 8 program. Now he has 107 houses and collecting government checks to the tune of $900,000 each year. I asked him why he felt that it was OK for him to take government money and at the same time deny the poor similar help? He was unable to answer that question; but, he drifted on to say that most poor people were criminals and deserved to be arrested and Tasered by the cops. I reminded him that some people die when Tasered. He answered that less of them die than when being shot, so it was OK with him. I argued that it was immoral to think of the poor that way. He replied by saying as long as he got to keep his money, he did not care about poor people!

 

You argued with a Republican? And a stinking rich one on top of that?

That's like arguing scripture with the pope.

Bad idea.

 

Sounds more like classic American greed than politics. There are plenty of greedy democrats out there who play the system just as tightly as the GOP a-hole you interviewed. I find it odd you got so much out of him since most greedy bastards don't give common people that much of an audience. They're too arrogant for contact with lower forms of society. I also have to notice the difference between Bernie and the Clintons, both claiming to be democrats. Then we have Trump, the shake and bake "republican", arrogant to the core and so in love with himself.

Rhad-knee

 

My point to the rich guy was that the Section 8 program was good for both the poor and the rich. The rich guy was saying he did not think that there should be any more government programs such as this, because his taxes would be too high at that point. I think he was saying a government program is OK as long as it is convenient for him.

 

Not sure what your point is. There are plenty of wealthy politicians (especially Democrats) who benefit off the poor as well, mainly by pandering and pretending to give a shit about them. I guess one thing that can be said for at least some Republicans is that at least they don't try to hide their contempt for the poor. I am not sure why some people feel they need to make every matter a political one. There are scumbags on both sides, and anyone who takes sides politically is not really awake to what's going on. Politicians in general are absolutely disgusting in how they treat poverty by making it worse while pretending to want to make it better. Poverty is control, and the system thrives off of it. It doesn't matter which corporate political party is in power at any given time. Have things gotten better for the poor since Obama has been in office? Fuck no, things are worse off than ever.

 

OK Rat, I will go along with the Both Dems and Repubs are bad; however, you should agree that people go along with programs as long as it is convenient for them, and something needs to be done about poverty globally, because as you point out things are worse off than ever.

 

Bet the guy is a slumlord....

 

Hi Mister T, and yes he owns 107 houses, all in the BLACK part of town. He collects about $785 per month for each house from the Section 8 program. He was boasting that he just paid $93000 cash for his new Lexus sedan. He also paid the nearly $8000 in sales tax the same way. All his houses cost under $20000, so go figure the return on that one.

 

99% of Republicans are ignorant of how our society and economy work (especially Libertarians, er, fibbertarians)

When unemployment was very low in Bill Clinton's latter term, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan fretted over it. You see, low unemployment leads to businesses competing for labor, so wages rise. Working people are less desperate.

Higher wages lead to inflation, and that is bad for investors.

At that time, there were editorials in newspapers such as the "New York Times" which mentioned that ANYONE who knows how the system works knows that there will NEVER be a job for everyone. When politicians bitch about lazy poor people, it's just a way to manipulate working people into voting Republican.

Again, there will NEVER be a job for everyone. Socialism and Communism won't provide everyone a job without making jobs and the economy meaningless.

Tell your Republican friends that if they KNEW how business and economics worked, they'd get off this crp about lazy poor people needing jobs.

Heck, some Libertarians, such as Charles Murray (The Bell Curve, author) now ADVOCATE a basic income, as a way to eliminate welfare's bureacracy.

 

Thank you...that reminded me of Huey Lewis and the News...I need a new drug!

 

I don't think it's just republicans. Many people (especially the young "cool" people!) throw the poor under the bus. It's not surprising to see republicans grouped in like this with someone like Trump leading the herd, but I will say this: Not all Republicans are fixated on money.

Now I see that this one guy that you were talking to obviously WAS fixated on money. That's sad and he should be more understanding of others.

 

There is a bunch in life that money can not buy. Lots of people think money is the best path to pleasure and happy-ness. I can be happy with a cup of coffee and a half pack of cigarettes on the beach, watching the waves come in.

 

Storm Mountain, how do you mean a new drug and Huey?

 

probably not in the typical sense. To qualify for section 8 housing the places have to be in pretty good condition and have to be maintained and repaired in a timely manner or he loses it.
not saying they are, but technically the places are supposed to be in tip-top shape for gov rent $$$. plus the tenants can complain if he doesn't fix shit and there isn't much he can do except fix stuff.
actually by offering his houses for section 8 housing, he affords his tenants even more rights than they would normally have.
they have some strict rules for both the tenant and landlords to qualify.

that's all assuming the gov people are doing their job and inspecting the houses annually like they are supposed to.
who knows, the places could renovated outhouses

 

but how did you buy that pack of cigs and coffee?

 

The problem as I see it is that the US has two parties of the right that’s leadership has to one extent or another been corrupted by neoliberal free market ideology.

That is why there are many that call themselves ‘Democrat’ that are not that different in viewpoint to those that call themselves ‘Republican’.

The thing is that at least many on the left and others that call themselves ‘Democrats’ want to get rid of or at least lessen the corruption of free market ideology many of those on the right seem to think the answer is more neoliberalism, in other words the patient is poisoned and their answer is to give them more poison.

It’s also interesting that many that are now ‘Trump republicans’ seem confused they seem to have and at the same time not have neoliberal views.

 

Here is a review of an interesting book on the subject of the new slum landlord issue. Here are the first two paragraphs -

What if the dominant discourse on poverty is just wrong? What if the problem isn’t that poor people have bad morals – that they’re lazy and impulsive and irresponsible and have no family values – or that they lack the skills and smarts to fit in with our shiny 21st-century economy? What if the problem is that poverty is profitable? These are the questions at the heart of Evicted, Matthew Desmond’s extraordinary ethnographic study of tenants in low-income housing in the deindustrialised middle-sized city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

You might not think that there is a lot of money to be extracted from a dilapidated trailer park or a black neighbourhood of “sagging duplexes, fading murals, 24-hour daycares”. But you would be wrong. Tobin Charney makes $400,000 a year out of his 131 trailers, some of which are little better than hovels. Sherrena Tarver, a former schoolteacher who is one of the only black female landlords in the city, makes enough in rents on her numerous properties – some presentable, others squalid – to holiday in Jamaica and attend conferences on real estate.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/07/evicted-poverty-and-profit-in-the-american-city-matthew-desmond-review



And here is an articule on something called the Mobile Home University’

The number one rule is stated twice, once in the classroom and once on the bus: “Don’t make fun of the residents.” Welcome to Mobile Home University, a three-day, $2,000 “boot camp” that teaches people from across the US how to make a fortune by buying up trailer parks.

Trailer parks are big and profitable business – particularly after hundreds of thousands of Americans who lost their homes in the financial crisis created a huge demand for affordable housing. According to US Census figures, more than 20 million people, or 6% of the population, live in trailer parks.

It is a market that has not been lost on some of the country’s richest and most high-profile investors. Sam Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) is the largest mobile home park owner in America, with controlling interests in nearly 140,000 parks. In 2014, ELS made $777m in revenue, helping boost Zell’s near-$5bn fortune.
Warren Buffett, the nation’s second-richest man with a $72bn fortune, owns the biggest mobile home manufacturer in the US, Clayton Homes, and the two biggest mobile home lenders, 21st Mortgage Corporation and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance Company. Buffett’s trailer park investments will feature heavily at his annual meeting this weekend, which will be attended by more than 40,000 shareholders in Omaha.

Such success is prompting ordinary people with little or no experience to try to follow in their footsteps.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/03/owning-trailer-parks-mobile-home-university-investment

 

I did not say that I bought that pack of cigarettes and cup of coffee. I said that I would be happy with that small and simple pleasure, meaning I don't need millions. It is metaphoric speech. Ask anyone who does not acquire their knowledge from Neo-con news sources.

 

Arguing with a republican is like arguing with a four year old.

 

I love your metaphor! It's also a very good analogy!