Nanny state: jailing the poor

[Kulindahr]

I bumped into an interesting ordinance this last week. Passed by Democrats, it sets aesthetic standards. Sounds good, right?

But its actual effect is to punish the poor for being poor. In this economy, it's being devastating: people who have been living in old trailers or RVs on a friend's property are having their homes towed away and scrapped if they can't pay fines that can run to $800, and tend to double every week. Then they get a bill for the towing ($300) and the scrapping ($2000) and never see their belongings again.

And since the bills come through the courts, if they can't pay they go to jail.


In another instance, a man who handled trailers and RVs for people, towing them and scrapping them and paying the owners, so though the government was making them homeless they were at least getting money, got his business shut down -- under the same ordinance. Even though he was doing the work on his own property, behind a fence, he had a neighbor up the hill who could see over the fence. The neighbor, a multi-millionaire Democrat who donates to the campaigns of the Democrats who passed this ordinance, complained that the business was "unsightly". So the man who was trying to help the poor got a "cease and desist" order.

Of course, this was also his livelihood. So thanks to Democrats, the poor can't even escape the punishment I described above, and a man's livelihood is gone.

For any good reason? No, only because some people care more about what visually bugs them than they do about actual people.


It's enough to make a guy want to vote Republican.

 

[CowboyBob]

Create American jobs that pay a living wage. Raise the minimum wage. Make sure the rich don't control everything. Have a secure safety net so people don't fall into grinding poverty. Provide adequate and affordable health care and equal rights for people. Build schools and staff them will well paid teachers to educate kids. Do those things and they won't have to haul away old trailers.

Makes you want to vote Democratic. Republicans won't do any of those things. They're only out for the rich.

 

[Kulindahr]

Create American jobs that pay a living wage. Raise the minimum wage. Make sure the rich don't control everything. Have a secure safety net so people don't fall into grinding poverty. Provide adequate and affordable health care and equal rights for people. Build schools and staff them will well paid teachers to educate kids. Do those things and they won't have to haul away old trailers.

Makes you want to vote Democratic. Republicans won't do any of those things. They're only out for the rich.

And when times are bad, make the poor even poorer, as a way to get people to vote for you to get their free stuff from the government.

When times are good, raise the minimum wage and pass so many regulations that businesses are driven to send jobs overseas just to survive... thus creating more poor people to manipulate into voting for you.

And always, always turn the term private property into a joke so people can't fend for themselves, but have to buy into the corporate structure where they don't trust their bosses, so they're willing to hand even more power to the government to protect them from the corporations.


Want to know why the Democrats never really do anything to make giant corporations honest -- besides the fact that they totally love the massive supplies of cash that go to both parties? They need them to be the bogeyman for the things they're doing to turn Americans into serfs.

At least the Republicans will let you use your own land to make a living and to help others, and don't try to send you to jail for being poor.

 

[BostonPirate]

I think your personal situation is clouding your judgement, Kulindahr.

I know things are not easy for you right now, and your posts are showing how stressed you are.

I think you ought to take a step back and reread the things you've written here and think about whether they make sense.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think your personal situation is clouding your judgement, Kulindahr.

I know things are not easy for you right now, and your posts are showing how stressed you are.

I think you ought to take a step back and reread the things you've written here and think about whether they make sense.

They're the same things I've been pointing out all along: Democrats support policies that cram people into conformity and turn them into sheep dependent on government instead of allowing them to stand on their own. They despise private property, individuality, and free enterprise. They love guilds and any organizations that make prices higher for things people really need. They have a vision for what the country should look like and they don't give a shit about what happens to people who are in the way of that.


As for my personal situation, it merely serves to accent the fact that, Democrat or Republican, there really aren't many Christians in the country, because it's put me in a position to really see that so many "have this world's goods" and have no compassion at all: one side expects people to go to government programs, which is just a form of cold-heartedness, an expression of "don't bother me!", while the other side despises people for not "getting a job and making good". Liberal or conservative, what really drives those with wealth is selfishness, and their real attitude is cruel unconcern.

And that's why whichever party is in Congress, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Want a Congress that will really take care of the people? Pass term limits, and then pass a law that says that for five years after leaving office, they have to rely on whatever government programs they helped pass.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't help restore compassion to the country.

 

[bankside]

Create American jobs that pay a living wage.

Even though I'm Canadian, I'm willing to buy things from Americans when they do a good job of making them.

I'm part of the solution, perhaps? I guess I create American jobs. That's the wonder of free trade. Would you buy Canadian goods as easily as I would buy American goods if they were well made and fairly priced?



Kulindahr, my neighbours across the street rebuilt their house over the last 4 years. It has taken them that long, and things looked pretty rough in the mean time. House half built. Yard full of weeds. In this case it wasn't money. We had a boom so intense starting in 2007 that you just couldn't get contractors in at any price. City of a million, and nobody will even give you a quote. Anyway, the neighbours didn't mind so much, even though it was ugly to watch. Mostly we wished them well and hoped for a more balanced economy.

But if I had to sell during that time, I do understand that it would be a turn-off for some buyers to move in just across the street from that kind of mess. I also understand that the way I keep my property has consequences for my neighbours.

In principle, I understand why I don't have total freedom over my own piece of land. Obviously my land would be worth more if I could develop it or sell it without any conditions at all regarding what was built here, or what it looked like, or what condition I kept it in. But my land would be also worth less if my neighbours had the same freedom and could do whatever they liked regardless of the impact on the quality of life possible on my property. So there is a balance between the freedom I have to enjoy my land as I see fit, and conforming to neighbourhood expectations. If the balance is right, it makes it worthwhile for all of us. And I have to add, given some of your points, this isn't a balance imposed by government, it is a balance that people expect their governments to deliver.

The real issue here is how does the community and the government treat people who aren't in a position to achieve a certain level of property maintenance. If the family or individual is making an appropriate effort, then does the neighbourhood/community/government have an obligation to help? Should the government require people to put something away in good times to see them through a rough patch using their own savings? Should it just be a free-for-all?

 

[justapixel]

Create American jobs that pay a living wage. Raise the minimum wage. Make sure the rich don't control everything. Have a secure safety net so people don't fall into grinding poverty. Provide adequate and affordable health care and equal rights for people. Build schools and staff them will well paid teachers to educate kids. Do those things and they won't have to haul away old trailers.

Makes you want to vote Democratic. Republicans won't do any of those things. They're only out for the rich.

The Democrats are in power now. They have failed to do any of thing you mentioned.

The Republicans will have to come in and clean up the mess left by the Democrats.

 

[CowboyBob]

The Democrats are in power now. They have failed to do any of thing you mentioned.

The Republicans will have to come in and clean up the mess left by the Democrats.

Everything the Democrats try to do, the Republicans fight against it. The Republicans are for the rich and the corporations. They don't care for the common American.

The Democrats created Social Security. The republicans were against it.

The Democrats created regulations which made us safe. The Republicans are against those.

The Democrats raise the minimum wage. The Republicans want to abolish it.

The Democrats have built schools and want to increase the teacher's wages. The Republicans want to slash school funding.

The Democrats are cleaning up Bush's mess and it was a bad one. It's sad you can't get anything correct.

 

[BostonPirate]

Cowboy, just ignore him.

He's trying to get under your skin. He knows its the reverse and he's baiting you.

 

[CowboyBob]

Cowboy, just ignore him.

He's trying to get under your skin. He knows its the reverse and he's baiting you.

Thanks sweets.

I know that. But it's so much fun to prove him wrong as it's so easily done. He's just my obsessive stalker. Those EPIC FAIL posts of his give me and many others a good laugh.

 

[BostonPirate]

They're the same things I've been pointing out all along: Democrats support policies that cram people into conformity and turn them into sheep dependent on government instead of allowing them to stand on their own. They despise private property, individuality, and free enterprise. They love guilds and any organizations that make prices higher for things people really need. They have a vision for what the country should look like and they don't give a shit about what happens to people who are in the way of that.


As for my personal situation, it merely serves to accent the fact that, Democrat or Republican, there really aren't many Christians in the country, because it's put me in a position to really see that so many "have this world's goods" and have no compassion at all: one side expects people to go to government programs, which is just a form of cold-heartedness, an expression of "don't bother me!", while the other side despises people for not "getting a job and making good". Liberal or conservative, what really drives those with wealth is selfishness, and their real attitude is cruel unconcern.

And that's why whichever party is in Congress, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Want a Congress that will really take care of the people? Pass term limits, and then pass a law that says that for five years after leaving office, they have to rely on whatever government programs they helped pass.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't help restore compassion to the country.

I understand

this is why I always ask what and who affects a real change. I am all about the deal and not about the idea.

Its tiem to think about who has a real idea that can be enacted that will touch your life.

The republican ideas are designed to help the righ, not the poor, and no matter how much you get down on life, that is the real truth.

 

[Spiff]

The Republicans will have to come in and clean up the mess left by the Democrats.

Assuming Republicans even have any type of plan to do anything constructive for our country (lol), you better hope that there won't be enough Democrats to play the Republicans nasty filibuster game. Even if no filibuster power, I'm sure they will play the other game where they vote against everything that Republicans want to do. And so the vicious 2-party tit-for-tat cycle will continue to get worse as nothing will get accomplished.

 

[Kulindahr]

In principle, I understand why I don't have total freedom over my own piece of land. Obviously my land would be worth more if I could develop it or sell it without any conditions at all regarding what was built here, or what it looked like, or what condition I kept it in. But my land would be also worth less if my neighbours had the same freedom and could do whatever they liked regardless of the impact on the quality of life possible on my property. So there is a balance between the freedom I have to enjoy my land as I see fit, and conforming to neighbourhood expectations. If the balance is right, it makes it worthwhile for all of us. And I have to add, given some of your points, this isn't a balance imposed by government, it is a balance that people expect their governments to deliver.

The real issue here is how does the community and the government treat people who aren't in a position to achieve a certain level of property maintenance. If the family or individual is making an appropriate effort, then does the neighbourhood/community/government have an obligation to help? Should the government require people to put something away in good times to see them through a rough patch using their own savings? Should it just be a free-for-all?

Here's a further comment on the problem:

A rich guy here (Republican) bought the old Safeway property when it wasn't selling because its location had been deemed a flood plain so no one wanted it. The city was tied up in the deal somehow, in hopes of making the place a park -- where floods merely add to the soil. He stepped in to end the legal tangle that was costing everyone bundles, and is keeping the property while the city works things out with the state and feds -- they have to jump through environmental and other hoops just to be able to return the area to its pre-development condition (government hobbling other government, cluelessly). So it sits there and floods most years, every now and then with water getting inside.

Well, he did gut the building somewhat, taking out all the hanging ceilings and partitions that could collect mold and mildew and vermin. So the thing sits there with 20'+ ceilings, empty. He decided the poor with their trailers needed help, so he went to the city council and county commissioners and offered the building for people to park their trailers in. There was already sewer service, and the restrooms were even still there and the plumbing working. All it would have taken to get electricity back was the flip of a switch. He was willing to pay for two doors big enough to get RVs in and out, and put a cosmetic front on so the trailers wouldn't be visible even to those who bothered to look. There was enough room in there that every single RV then parked in a yard or on a street in the town could have fit, like an indoor trailer park. All the "vagrants" would have had a place to live, he would have paid the water and sewer and even offered to hire night security; all the "unsightly" trailers would have been out of sight of the prissy upper crust.

What did the council say? "No." They didn't want to be responsible if it flooded with people there. And though another businessman offered to pay to dredge a slough to relieve flooding pressure (which ought to be dredged; it's only filled thanks to past crooked politics and greed), they didn't budge. And when another businessman said if there was a flood he'd send all his tractors to move the trailers to higher ground, they wouldn't budge -- and the county wouldn't even consider a temporary land-use variance to give the trailers a place to go out of the floods!

The only sensible conclusion I can draw is that our Democrats just plain hate the poor and are persecuting us. And when I mentioned this to several pastors around town, they agreed.

I understand

this is why I always ask what and who affects a real change. I am all about the deal and not about the idea.

Its tiem to think about who has a real idea that can be enacted that will touch your life.

The republican ideas are designed to help the righ, not the poor, and no matter how much you get down on life, that is the real truth.

Well, people with bucks donating to my project would touch my life, because the debt (due to emergencies and vandalism) is carried on my VISA card.

As for Republican ideas, they're not actually designed to help the rich -- they're designed to let every person do as he pleases with what is his. It's just that the rich have a lot more to do with as they please.

 

[jackoroe]

The partisan bullshit in this thread is embarrassing.

The first post had some real wisdom in it.

You're absolutely right, sir. I've looked at Kuli's blog here on JUB and visited the site for his project.

Kuli has been a regular poster here at CE&P for some years now. He's a fellow Libertarian, an outdoorsman and a naturalist. According to his website, he and some friends have taken it upon themselves to improve access to Short Beach, in Oregon, not just for themselves but for everybody. People who would try to get down the trail were frequently being injured due to the treacherous terrain. As a result of Kulindahr's efforts, things have gotten better. Not completely perfect, but improved. Describing it as a work in progress, is about right.

Kuli went into his own pocket and paid for some of the materials needed to make this happen. The purpose of his website, was in part , to help him offset these expenses, which aren't huge, but are substantial enough to adversely effect his ability to buy an RV he will call home. He's had some issues with his family and finds himself on the way to being homeless. I've never been homeless, and I don't wish it on anybody else. It has to be very frightening.

But I'm all about solutions and not blame. The situation is that we have the ability to do good on three fronts. We can help make access to Short Beach a little better for everybody who cares to go there. We can help our friend, who is a member of this community we call JUB. And we can keep our friend, Kulindahr from voting for those damned republicans.

How can we do that you may ask? Well, visiting his website, you'll find a place where you can contribute. I think this is a good occasion to forget about all this political horse shit for a moment or two and do something as a community to help one of our own.

I know things are shitty out there right about now. But I've been in bad places in my life and people have helped me when I needed it. I'm a big believer in Karma or "paying it forward" as it's now called. So, I help others when I can. Take a look and if you see your way clear, contribute something. Take a bit of this load off your brother's shoulders.

Here's the link:
http://www.shortbeachtrail.org/

 

[T-Rexx]

The Republicans will have to come in and clean up the mess left by the Democrats.

You mean, like they did from 2001 to 2009?

 

[SuperPsyze]

People get into politics to make money. Politics is a lucrative career, and pays well. Very well.

Here's the issue with Congress as a whole. These are the people who are elected to represent the people of their state. They are meant to cast their vote for what is best for their people. The reality is that they'll vote for what is best for themselves. Honestly, has Congress ever down-voted giving everyone in Congress a raise?

They don't represent the people. It doesn't matter what happens to the poor, because they're not poor. In fact, they're on wages that can raise half a dozen families.

Truth of the matter is that it is hard to vote against tax cuts for the rich in Congress because nearly every single member in Congress is affected negatively. This goes for any legislation that threatens to take a dime out of their wallets.

 

[ayesinwi]

The Democrats created Social Security. The republicans were against it.

Social Security will have run out by the time I'm old enough to retire because a damn democrat said "Hey, we should pay people who can't work with this too!" Which is a very socialist policy.

The Democrats created regulations which made us safe. The Republicans are against those.

What regulations?

The Democrats raise the minimum wage. The Republicans want to abolish it.

Right, because THAT expense ONLY puts a burden on the employers shoulders. It's not like the employers don't just pass that straight on to the fucking consumer.

The Democrats have built schools and want to increase the teacher's wages. The Republicans want to slash school funding.

Do you have a concrete example of this?

The Democrats are cleaning up Bush's mess and it was a bad one. It's sad you can't get anything correct.

Bush was cleaning up Clinton's mess and Clinton was cleaning up H. W. Bush's mess, who was cleaning up Reagan's mess, who was cleaning up Carter's mess, and on and on and on...

 

[Jack Springer]

Kuli - you're one of the most sane people on this site. You rarely, if ever, get upset. You have clearly defined beliefs and stick to them. I've read some of your older blogs -- real tear jerkers filled with hope. I like that

I admire you. I don't always agree with you but you always make a good defense for your beliefs and views often with a great sense of humor.

I always get a laugh out of democrats when they speak for common sense and bi-partisanship. It always means you have to believe and accept what they believe. No compromise. No open mind.

Thanks for having an open mind Kuli - keep posting and I'll keep reading.

 

[bankside]

The partisan bullshit in this thread is embarrassing.

The first post had some real wisdom in it.

You're absolutely right, sir.

You've conveniently forgotten the partisanship that began with the original post itself, and also this little gem:

Democrats support policies that cram people into conformity and turn them into sheep dependent on government instead of allowing them to stand on their own. They despise private property, individuality, and free enterprise. They love guilds and any organizations that make prices higher for things people really need. They have a vision for what the country should look like and they don't give a shit about what happens to people who are in the way of that.

That sounds like someone well on the road to bipartisan cooperation, doesn't it? Incidentally, take note of the idea of people standing on their own.

I always get a laugh out of democrats when they speak for common sense and bi-partisanship. It always means you have to believe and accept what they believe. No compromise. No open mind.

Jack Springer, in your experience as a bi-partisan, tell us about the last time you believed and accepted a core Democratic ideal with your big ole' open mind, steeped as it is in the spirit of compromise? Compromise should be a two-way street. Some people might see it as a dead-end. But you see it as a one way street, with no one willing to drive the other way. So when is the last time you drove down it?

As for my personal situation, it merely serves to accent the fact that, Democrat or Republican, there really aren't many Christians in the country, because it's put me in a position to really see that so many "have this world's goods" and have no compassion at all: one side expects people to go to government programs, which is just a form of cold-heartedness, an expression of "don't bother me!", while the other side despises people for not "getting a job and making good". Liberal or conservative, what really drives those with wealth is selfishness, and their real attitude is cruel unconcern.

Well, honestly, is this as close as we're going to get to bipartisanship? Not enough Christians? And both left and right are assholes. Okay, I get it: as long as people are being crammed into conformity and turned into sheep dependent on other Christians, then it is okay if they are unable to stand on their own.

Kulindahr, you lost me a little after the remark about people being allowed "to stand on their own." People don't and can't stand on their own, as you acknowledge in your "not enough Christians" remark.

If I were a city councillor I would have serious reservations about rezoning a gutted out Safeway on a flood plain to allow it to be filled with motorhomes and tent trailers that would go well beyond "Ewww. I don't want to look at that. Eww.."

However even if the extent of my concern was that I just did not care to look at a flood plain with a gutted out Safeway filled with trailers, that only amounts to cruelty if there is literally no other recourse. Government programs are not an expression of indifference, they're an insurance backstop for us all. We've all paid into them. We all own the good they're expected to produce. And we all are entitled to their support in the right circumstances. It makes no more sense to construe them as a plot to undermine human dignity than it does to say that about my car insurance. If someone breaks my car windows, or of a branch falls and breaks a window, I just call up and make a claim because that is the circumstance for which the insurance was designed. I don't wait around for a Christian to show compassion for my plight.

As it happens, in my own community, I do expect people to get a job and make good, provided that a) their health permits them to work enough to be financially self-sufficient, and b) that some kind of job opportunity exists for them. If those two conditions do not exist, I expect [STRIKE]my[/STRIKE] our government - and certainly not my church - to deliver the basics.

In our respective countries we are united by common bonds of citizenship. It is an accidental and unchosen bond for most citizens, but it is real nonetheless, and certainly - while distinct and in some ways different - no less real than that of a church or bowling league or support group or sports team.

Ultimately, I find it the height of chutzpah to hear remarks that seem to go beyond not just lament but actually have a touch of sneering to them, about a dearth of support in the form one most hopes to experience it, combined with open contempt for entitlements which might improve the situation.

Let me put it this way: I pay, through my taxes, for a highway to Alaska. I may never need that highway in my life. I haven't so far. I may prefer to travel on a private toll highway and save myself the taxes. I may prefer to travel on a private Christian highway paid for by alms and bingo. Or if I'm feeling particularly self-sufficient, I might prefer to build the highway myself. But if I need to get to Alaska, I'm going to take that tax-supported publicly-funded highway without a moment's hesitation, because win or lose in a democracy I've had the chance to vote on it or even run against it if I wanted to, but now that it's there I'm entitled to use it.

At that point, any argument I would make about the highway would just be me abusing æsthetics: I don't like the look of this opportunity.

 

[BostonPirate]

libertarians want to reduce the government unless it stops them from getting what they want from said government.

Cruel unconcern from someone who advocates the abolition of most of the federal assistance programs is just a little off and this is about one mans inner demons right now, not about the policies or partisanships of any member here.