Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 The government subsidizes everything else, why not this? 357032[/snapback] What about goverment surplus cigarettes...really sub-par, crappy butts?
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Should we sterilize them too? After all, the government is supporting them, and them only. The hole is getting deeper 357040[/snapback] People from Florida? Hey, that'sa good idea, I hadn't thought about it. Might cut down on some of the problems.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Again so glad to see that people can have an opinion other than yours. While some of us are not so elequent with the English language, some of us actually have opinions beyond what a media source or political party tells us. I know I am a rare breed in that matter, but accept it any how. 357038[/snapback] Thanks for concentrating on the one thing you could possibly answer. Fished in... Fear the government that fears your freedom. Your willingness to transfer so much to an entity that has shown so little speaks volumes.
Bill from NYC Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Thanks for concentrating on the one thing you could possibly answer. Fished in... Fear the government that fears your freedom. Your willingness to transfer so much to an entity that has shown so little speaks volumes. 357057[/snapback] The average person would not have budged as much as one iota on this issue. VA did, and he is imo to be commended. I don't blame him for hating smoking. Sadly, smoking is not the real issue, but the distraction. Most people will not get it until it is too late, and each and every thing we do is regulated. This day is rapidly approaching.
Johnny Coli Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 No but if you are poor and need public money, then all the government is doing is subsidizing your smoking habit. 357030[/snapback] I understand what VABills is saying. If these people can’t afford to pay for housing themselves, and the government is subsidizing their rent, then they shouldn’t be able to use the extra cash on an addiction. However, being a liberal, my plan would be to 1. Eliminate ALL smoking in the projects by setting an unrealistic goal very far into the future (ie 2015) 2. Enact extremely expensive anti-smoking programs that will ultimately fail, yet look good on paper for when I run for the Senate 3. Subsidize their habits with government cigarettes until the programs above can get them to quit 4. Spend large amounts of money trying to get the tobacco companies to foot the bill
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Not to mention the ridiculous cost of enforcement. Can you imagine an entire entity setup just to go in and find butts and ashtrays? Maybe they'll stumble across a Twinkie rapper and we can send the whole family to Gitmo. VERY smart. 357029[/snapback] Okay honest answer. For any house getting public subsidies, it is under government control. As such the federal government either directly or through contract services actually go out and are required to inspect the place once per year, in addition they are required to audit the owner once per year. This is to protect the tenant and ensure the mob is not doing government business. That said, while you don't send teams out to check for butts, these teams already are going out to inspect for problems the owner has to fix, they can easily note if they see cigarette butts inside the appartment. If so the tenant is given a warning, and booted the second time, no more government handout. No extra effort on the inspection teams, and easy to extract that info from the system where it is maintained. I know a little about that subject.
Bill from NYC Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Okay honest answer. For any house getting public subsidies, it is under government control. As such the federal government either directly or through contract services actually go out and are required to inspect the place once per year, in addition they are required to audit the owner once per year. This is to protect the tenant and ensure the mob is not doing government business. That said, while you don't send teams out to check for butts, these teams already are going out to inspect for problems the owner has to fix, they can easily note if they see cigarette butts inside the appartment. If so the tenant is given a warning, and booted the second time, no more government handout. No extra effort on the inspection teams, and easy to extract that info from the system where it is maintained. I know a little about that subject. 357084[/snapback] Do you know anything about riots? VA, I am NOT being a wiseass! Do you want to see housing residents and police officers possibly killed because of a stupid issue such as this? Do you think these people will say, "OK, evict me and my children because I was caught with an ashtray" and smilingly head out into the cold with their babies? Please, think it out.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I know a little about that subject. 357084[/snapback] Which makes your stance that much more stupifying.
KRC Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Okay honest answer. For any house getting public subsidies, it is under government control. As such the federal government either directly or through contract services actually go out and are required to inspect the place once per year, in addition they are required to audit the owner once per year. This is to protect the tenant and ensure the mob is not doing government business. That said, while you don't send teams out to check for butts, these teams already are going out to inspect for problems the owner has to fix, they can easily note if they see cigarette butts inside the appartment. If so the tenant is given a warning, and booted the second time, no more government handout. No extra effort on the inspection teams, and easy to extract that info from the system where it is maintained. I know a little about that subject. 357084[/snapback] Now try to prove that they were the ones smoking and not someone else. Good luck with that. It shouldn't cost too much to impliment this plan.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Now try to prove that they were the ones smoking and not someone else. Good luck with that. It shouldn't cost too much to impliment this plan. 357114[/snapback] Doesn't matter, public building, not permitted in the building. Just like if you lend someone your car and they get caught with drugs, police get to keep your car. And Darin, how is my stance stupifying? Please explain. The owners of the property have to ensure these people have a safe encironment to live in, but if they want to trash the place it's okay. Trust me, a tenant can pretty much destroy a place, yet the owner has to fix it. How's that for you? And trust me it is pretty incredible what someof these folks do.
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 The subdivision's ban appears to be legal, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sex offenders are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, HUD spokesman Jerry Brown said. Katherine Stark, a board member of the National Fair Housing Alliance, said she's not surprised by the idea because people are scared of sex offenders. But, she said, the prohibition can't keep offenders from living near the subdivision. http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/11824411.htm You'd have No smoking, But a sex offender is ok?
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/11824411.htmYou'd have No smoking, But a sex offender is ok? 357156[/snapback] What???? From what you read it sounds like can and did ban them. Of course just like any other criminal once they have served their time they are allowed the same rights. Hence if they need public housing assistance it must be given. Smoking is an action. But just like a sex offender a smoker should be able to get public assitance. They just can't smoke in the rental unit, just like the sex offender can't commit sex crimes in there.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Smoking is an action. 357159[/snapback] A legal action, as it were.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 A legal action, as it were. 357166[/snapback] Maybe but there are smokers and sex offenders. One should not be oppressed because they are either if they have served their time in the case of the Sex Offender. However, if one does the act of sex offending, or smoking where not permitted they should pay the approriate penalty. Obviously, one being more serious and should be punished more harshly, but both are illegal.
Alaska Darin Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Maybe but there are smokers and sex offenders. One should not be oppressed because they are either if they have served their time in the case of the Sex Offender. However, if one does the act of sex offending, or smoking where not permitted they should pay the approriate penalty. Obviously, one being more serious and should be punished more harshly, but both are illegal. 357176[/snapback] OMFG.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 OMFG. 357217[/snapback] "Somewhere, over the rainbow..."
Ghost of BiB Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 "Somewhere, over the rainbow..." 357227[/snapback] ....Dorothy and Toto await him.
erynthered Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 ....Dorothy and Toto await him. 357265[/snapback] Auntie Em, Auntie Em....................
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 OMFG. 357217[/snapback] You know I have been thinking the same thing most of the day.
VABills Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Auntie Em, Auntie Em.................... 357270[/snapback] Stay out of it before you get hurt.
Recommended Posts