Political Roundtable - Part VII

[TheSecretWeapon]

I haven't read the bill but have read half a dozen articles on it.

The rule is available online.

Have you read anything about it that didn't come from the conservative media?

I think the concept of removing hidden barriers to fair housing for minorities and disabled individuals has merit. I'm not sure why the FEDS need to be involved. Can't the individual states decide how best to integrate their communities? Like most big govt. solutions I doubt it will work out well. It reminds me of the busing fiasco of yesteryear.

Fair Housing Act is a FEDERAL law. It was passed by congress in 1968 and signed by Lyndon Johnson. It was amended in 1974, and signed by Gerald Ford. It was amended again in 1988, and signed by Ronald Reagan.

The rule explicitly states that it is providing information to local jurisdictions to enable the local jurisdictions to decide how to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

[popper]

The rule is available online.

Have you read anything about it that didn't come from the conservative media?

Fair Housing Act is a FEDERAL law. It was passed by congress in 1968 and signed by Lyndon Johnson. It was amended in 1974, and signed by Gerald Ford. It was amended again in 1988, and signed by Ronald Reagan.

The rule explicitly states that it is providing information to local jurisdictions to enable the local jurisdictions to decide how to enforce the Fair Housing Act.

Yes. I should have said law, not bill. We'll see how it works out.

[pineappleheadindc]

I'm quite the opposite of Republican, so I know my conservative friends here may think that my thoughts here are just stupid. But here goes:

Tuned in again to a Chris Christie speech and it was well-delivered, rational, thoughtful. He got the endorsement of MD Governor Hogan today. Think he can make a formidable candidate in the general.

I couch my thoughts about Christie to reflect my view of him *now*, before he has to tack massively to the right to address the surging Trump (and others) candidacy in the primaries. Perhaps when he does that, I'll be a little less enamoured of him. But for now, Christie and Jeb seem to be running a general election type of strategy.

It'll be a tricky thing for the GOP candidate to emerge unscathed and ready for a general election race. The Fox News debate next month will be a thing to see -- by the way, I don't agree with Fox's rule that you have to be in the Top 10 to get on stage. Instead, I'd take Rick Santorum's idea, get a ranking based on polls. Then have debates on back-to-back nights. Put all the odd-numbered candidates first (e.g, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 in the polls). Then, second night put all the even numbered candidates (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14). I like this b/c it guarantees star power in both debates and eliminates having an "also-ran" debate of low-polling candidates (only).

Finally, related, one of the also-ran candidates (forgot who) was on CNN yesterday complaining about not being ahead of the Top 10 cut-off. He said that the Republican party shouldn't let the MSM elites determine who should be on stage. Dude, that's FOX NEWS' rule. I thought when you got the secret handshake instructions and decoder ring, you were briefed on how Fox News is not the MSM media elite? Put down the rote talking points.

SMH.

[nate33]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

Of course it's more complicated than that. But the statistics are staggering. Staggering enough to make those who bought expensive homes in upper class white neighborhoods to be concerned about this policy.

You find me any place, anywhere, in any country, where crime among majority black neighborhoods is lower than crime in nearby majority white neighborhoods. Find me a place, anywhere, in any country, where school performance among majority black neighborhoods is superior than that of nearby white neighborhoods.

I'm not here to say I have the answers as to why this case. Only that this IS the case. There is a clear an obvious pattern. When a neighborhood gets more black and less white, school performance declines and crime goes up. Always.

Is it not reasonable then for those in a majority white neighborhood to be a little concerned about this policy?

And I'm sure I'll get the usual accusations of racism just because I have committed the act of Noticing. But let's be real. Good little rich liberals living in majority black neighborhoods send their kids to private school too. Where does Obama send his children? Where did Clinton?

[pineappleheadindc]

By the way, let me be political advisor for any GOP candidate. On messaging:

Look, I know you'all hate President Obama. But in your political vitriol, you not-so-conveniently forget one important fact -- the dude was elected. Twice. Let me be blunt: when you attack Obama, you marginalize yourself into the minority of voters (and a greater minority of Americans, as liberals don't actually vote in the same rates as conservatives).

So, when you yell and vow to "take America back", all you're doing is saying is that you would like the America that Americans did NOT vote for. What the hell kind of strategy is that? Do you want to win? Or do you want to play to your base?

A (general election) winning strategy is to:

1. Recognize that you can't marginalize voters. You have to accept reality.
2. Understand the general election voters. They elected Obama, twice.
3. Don't run against someone who beat you twice. Don't blast him or say how much you want to take our country back.
4. Run with an eye toward the future. You (candidate) are banned from saying the words back, etc, and instead "we are going to move our country *forward* with policy ideas that leverage conservative principles to the benefit of all Americans. Our best days are ahead of us."

Nobody wants to go back in life ("nobody" being figurative description of the general election electorate). We all want to move forward.

1. Civil war battle flag and Confederate 'traditions" -- back.
2. "Traditional" marriage -- back.
3. Criminalizing pot -- back.
4. Endless war in the MIddle East -- back.

These may be popular among the electorate in the GOP, but they are not among the generalized American populace Look forward. Be optimistic, not angry. Lead by looking forward, not in the rear view mirror. This is how you'll win in 2016.

[nate33]

By the way, let me be political advisor for any GOP candidate. On messaging:

Look, I know you'all hate President Obama. But in your political vitriol, you not-so-conveniently forget one important fact -- the dude was elected. Twice. Let me be blunt: when you attack Obama, you marginalize yourself into the minority of voters (and a greater minority of Americans, as liberals don't actually vote in the same rates as conservatives).

So, when you yell and vow to "take America back", all you're doing is saying is that you would like the America that Americans did NOT vote for. What the hell kind of strategy is that? Do you want to win? Or do you want to play to your base?

A (general election) winning strategy is to:

1. Recognize that you can't marginalize voters. You have to accept reality.
2. Understand the general election voters. They elected Obama, twice.
3. Don't run against someone who beat you twice. Don't blast him or say how much you want to take our country back.
4. Run with an eye toward the future. You (candidate) are banned from saying the words back, etc, and instead "we are going to move our country *forward* with policy ideas that leverage conservative principles to the benefit of all Americans. Our best days are ahead of us."

Nobody wants to go back in life ("nobody" being figurative description of the general election electorate). We all want to move forward.

1. Civil war battle flag and Confederate 'traditions" -- back.
2. "Traditional" marriage -- back.
3. Criminalizing pot -- back.
4. Endless war in the MIddle East -- back.

These may be popular among the electorate in the GOP, but they are not among the generalized American populace Look forward. Be optimistic, not angry. Lead by looking forward, not in the rear view mirror. This is how you'll win in 2016.

Good post, Pine. I agree with every point.

I think there is room to criticize Obama as part of a campaign strategy, but I would do so on the basis that Obama mislead those who voted for him. You know, the whole "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" thing. He can also be criticized for claiming to be the catalyst for racial conciliation when in fact his message has been much more divisive. Racial tensions are higher now than anytime in the past 40 years.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

Of course it's more complicated than that. But the statistics are staggering. Staggering enough to make those who bought expensive homes in upper class white neighborhoods to be concerned about this policy.

You find me any place, anywhere, in any country, where crime among majority black neighborhoods is lower than crime in nearby majority white neighborhoods. Find me a place, anywhere, in any country, where school performance among majority black neighborhoods is superior than that of nearby white neighborhoods.

I'm not here to say I have the answers as to why this case. Only that this IS the case. There is a clear an obvious pattern. When a neighborhood gets more black and less white, school performance declines and crime goes up. Always.

Is it not reasonable then for those in a majority white neighborhood to be a little concerned about this policy?

And I'm sure I'll get the usual accusations of racism just because I have committed the act of Noticing. But let's be real. Good little rich liberals living in majority black neighborhoods send their kids to private school too. Where does Obama send his children? Where did Clinton?

Let's reconnect this with the topic we've been discussing, which is housing discrimination. What's the policy implication? Should we repeal the Fair Housing Act and codify segregated housing? What's the next step?

[nate33]

Come on man. I pointed out that the article was inflammatory saying BHO was going to be
moving minorities into the suburbs and thus threatening you (white folks) with increased crime.
You responded by talking about a white trailer park. Now you're saying of
course it was about race. Can you understand why I am confused?

Nate, just looking briefly at your link, my first possibly superficial take was that it
was describing phenomenology. I hope we can agree something like this is a lot more
complicated than simply saying those black city folks just can't live peacefully and within
the law.

Of course it's more complicated than that. But the statistics are staggering. Staggering enough to make those who bought expensive homes in upper class white neighborhoods to be concerned about this policy.

You find me any place, anywhere, in any country, where crime among majority black neighborhoods is lower than crime in nearby majority white neighborhoods. Find me a place, anywhere, in any country, where school performance among majority black neighborhoods is superior than that of nearby white neighborhoods.

I'm not here to say I have the answers as to why this case. Only that this IS the case. There is a clear an obvious pattern. When a neighborhood gets more black and less white, school performance declines and crime goes up. Always.

Is it not reasonable then for those in a majority white neighborhood to be a little concerned about this policy?

And I'm sure I'll get the usual accusations of racism just because I have committed the act of Noticing. But let's be real. Good little rich liberals living in majority black neighborhoods send their kids to private school too. Where does Obama send his children? Where did Clinton?

Let's reconnect this with the topic we've been discussing, which is housing discrimination. What's the policy implication? Should we repeal the Fair Housing Act and codify segregated housing? What's the next step?

It depends on how you define housing discrimination. I don't think it's discriminatory to zone housing districts so that some zones are higher income and some zones are lower income. If it so happens that the high income zone ends up with a higher percentage of white people, that's not discrimination. Nobody is refusing to let people into the high income neighborhood if they have the money to afford the housing. The locality is merely trying to set a certain living standard for their area. It's not racial. Those rich folk don't want "poor white trash" moving in either.

[TheSecretWeapon]

By the way, let me be political advisor for any GOP candidate. On messaging:

Look, I know you'all hate President Obama. But in your political vitriol, you not-so-conveniently forget one important fact -- the dude was elected. Twice. Let me be blunt: when you attack Obama, you marginalize yourself into the minority of voters (and a greater minority of Americans, as liberals don't actually vote in the same rates as conservatives).

So, when you yell and vow to "take America back", all you're doing is saying is that you would like the America that Americans did NOT vote for. What the hell kind of strategy is that? Do you want to win? Or do you want to play to your base?

A (general election) winning strategy is to:

1. Recognize that you can't marginalize voters. You have to accept reality.
2. Understand the general election voters. They elected Obama, twice.
3. Don't run against someone who beat you twice. Don't blast him or say how much you want to take our country back.
4. Run with an eye toward the future. You (candidate) are banned from saying the words back, etc, and instead "we are going to move our country *forward* with policy ideas that leverage conservative principles to the benefit of all Americans. Our best days are ahead of us."

Nobody wants to go back in life ("nobody" being figurative description of the general election electorate). We all want to move forward.

1. Civil war battle flag and Confederate 'traditions" -- back.
2. "Traditional" marriage -- back.
3. Criminalizing pot -- back.
4. Endless war in the MIddle East -- back.

These may be popular among the electorate in the GOP, but they are not among the generalized American populace Look forward. Be optimistic, not angry. Lead by looking forward, not in the rear view mirror. This is how you'll win in 2016.

Good post, Pine. I agree with every point.

I think there is room to criticize Obama as part of a campaign strategy, but I would do so on the basis that Obama mislead those who voted for him. You know, the whole "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" thing. He can also be criticized for claiming to be the catalyst for racial conciliation when in fact his message has been much more divisive. Racial tensions are higher now than anytime in the past 40 years.

I concur with pine and you on strategy. And I concur that Obama can be criticized. I think it would be wiser to criticize his policies that people may not like rather than him the person.

I think it would be specious to suggest Obama is responsible for racial tensions or to criticize him for being racially divisive. Maybe if it could be supported with specifics, but I think that would be tough to prove. His presence may have been a catalyst for raising issues of racial injustice and systemic racism. That might be over-crediting him too, however. The rise of social media is probably a more significant factor because it gives an avenue for people to voice their opinions and talk about their experiences in ways that bypass the traditional information gatekeepers.

[nate33]

The rise of social media is probably a more significant factor because it gives an avenue for people to voice their opinions and talk about their experiences in ways that bypass the traditional information gatekeepers.

Good point.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Of course it's more complicated than that. But the statistics are staggering. Staggering enough to make those who bought expensive homes in upper class white neighborhoods to be concerned about this policy.

You find me any place, anywhere, in any country, where crime among majority black neighborhoods is lower than crime in nearby majority white neighborhoods. Find me a place, anywhere, in any country, where school performance among majority black neighborhoods is superior than that of nearby white neighborhoods.

I'm not here to say I have the answers as to why this case. Only that this IS the case. There is a clear an obvious pattern. When a neighborhood gets more black and less white, school performance declines and crime goes up. Always.

Is it not reasonable then for those in a majority white neighborhood to be a little concerned about this policy?

And I'm sure I'll get the usual accusations of racism just because I have committed the act of Noticing. But let's be real. Good little rich liberals living in majority black neighborhoods send their kids to private school too. Where does Obama send his children? Where did Clinton?

Let's reconnect this with the topic we've been discussing, which is housing discrimination. What's the policy implication? Should we repeal the Fair Housing Act and codify segregated housing? What's the next step?

It depends on how you define housing discrimination. I don't think it's discriminatory to zone housing districts so that some zones are higher income and some zones are lower income. If it so happens that the high income zone ends up with a higher percentage of white people, that's not discrimination. Nobody is refusing to let people into the high income neighborhood if they have the money to afford the housing. The locality is merely trying to set a certain living standard for their area. It's not racial. Those rich folk don't want "poor white trash" moving in either.

Well, this is different than the point you seemed to be making with the graph. The policy implication of that graph seemed to be that racial discrimination against blacks would be justified because of the correlation between "black prevalence" and crime. Your argument here seems to be that racial discrimination is not justified, but rather the issue should be based on financial resources.

As codified by the Fair Housing Act, we've collectively decided in this country that racial discrimination in housing is illegal. The 2010 review of Fair Housing Act enforcement indicated that racial discrimination is still prevalent. It's entirely appropriate for HUD to develop a response to that, and my reading of the rule they generated is that the agency's response is measured and reasonable.

[nate33]

As codified by the Fair Housing Act, we've collectively decided in this country that racial discrimination in housing is illegal. The 2010 review of Fair Housing Act enforcement indicated that racial discrimination is still prevalent. It's entirely appropriate for HUD to develop a response to that, and my reading of the rule they generated is that the agency's response is measured and reasonable.

Who did the review?

The Fair Housing Act doesn't decree that every single neighborhood in America have the exact same racial demographic distribution as the nation as a whole. It just says you can't discriminate on the basis of race. I'm in favor of that. I don't think real estate agents should be able to blackball black homebuyers from certain neighborhoods. Certainly, no zoning ordinance should be able to say that blacks can't move to certain areas (and I'm sure none of them do).

But zoning based on financial considerations is not based on race. Obama's interpretation of the Fair Housing Act seems to be that he has the right to use the Federal government to force low income housing right in the middle of wealthy neighborhoods and there's nothing that the wealthy neighborhood can do about it.

There's no reason why rich people shouldn't be able to form a community of rich people where they can hang out with rich people, go to rich people parties, hang out at the rich people pool, and have their kids go to rich people schools.

What's ironic about all this is that the true, unstated objective is to promote gentrification of the big cities. The liberals that run those cities are trying to get the blacks out.

[nate33]

Well, this is different than the point you seemed to be making with the graph. The policy implication of that graph seemed to be that racial discrimination against blacks would be justified because of the correlation between "black prevalence" and crime. Your argument here seems to be that racial discrimination is not justified, but rather the issue should be based on financial resources.

The point of my graph was to specifically address dobrojim's post:

maybe Popper can help us understand why an explicit statement that crime and a host of
other problems will follow minorities into the suburbs shouldn't be consider inflammatory.

The point is, it is rational for people to believe that crime and other problems follow minorities because that is exactly what happens. I thought my graph addressed the point rather well.

[TheSecretWeapon]

As codified by the Fair Housing Act, we've collectively decided in this country that racial discrimination in housing is illegal. The 2010 review of Fair Housing Act enforcement indicated that racial discrimination is still prevalent. It's entirely appropriate for HUD to develop a response to that, and my reading of the rule they generated is that the agency's response is measured and reasonable.

Who did the review?

Not sure. I think it was HUD.

The Fair Housing Act doesn't decree that every single neighborhood in America have the exact same racial demographic distribution as the nation as a whole. It just says you can't discriminate on the basis of race. I'm in favor of that. I don't think real estate agents should be able to blackball black homebuyers from certain neighborhoods. Certainly, no zoning ordinance should be able to say that blacks can't move to certain areas (and I'm sure none of them do).

No one is making that argument. Not even HUD, which promulgated the new rule. Rather, HUD noted that housing remains racially segregated in many areas, and that a cause for that is racial discrimination. But, they're not coming in with a heavy hammer of prosecutions for violations of the Fair Housing Act, they're providing information to local officials so the local officials can address racial discrimination in housing.

But zoning based on financial considerations is not based on race. Obama's interpretation of the Fair Housing Act seems to be that he has the right to use the Federal government to force low income housing right in the middle of wealthy neighborhoods and there's nothing that the wealthy neighborhood can do about it.

There's no reason why rich people shouldn't be able to form a community of rich people where they can hang out with rich people, go to rich people parties, hang out at the rich people pool, and have their kids go to rich people schools.

What's ironic about all this is that the true, unstated objective is to promote gentrification of the big cities. The liberals that run those cities are trying to get the blacks out.

I don't think anyone is arguing that rich people can't hang out with rich people and live near each other. The point is that there was a finding that racial discrimination remains prevalent, even when controlling for incomes.

[DCZards]

Nobody wants to go back in life ("nobody" being figurative description of the general election electorate). We all want to move forward.

1. Civil war battle flag and Confederate 'traditions" -- back.
2. "Traditional" marriage -- back.
3. Criminalizing pot -- back.
4. Endless war in the MIddle East -- back.

These may be popular among the electorate in the GOP, but they are not among the generalized American populace Look forward. Be optimistic, not angry. Lead by looking forward, not in the rear view mirror. This is how you'll win in 2016.

Good post, Pine. I agree with every point.

I think there is room to criticize Obama as part of a campaign strategy, but I would do so on the basis that Obama mislead those who voted for him. You know, the whole "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" thing. He can also be criticized for claiming to be the catalyst for racial conciliation when in fact his message has been much more divisive. Racial tensions are higher now than anytime in the past 40 years.

As an African-American, I see the "take back America" mantra of some Republican leaders as a direct reaction to having to deal with a president whose agenda (and race/culture) is vastly differently from theirs as well as a hit on this country's growing diversity of people and values. And I guarantee you that's how many Blacks and other minorities feel about the "take back America" stuff. They see it as a desire of some on the right to return to the "the good ole days"...which wasn't that good for some of us,

The "if you like your doctor...." as a possible criticism of Obama keeps coming up but I doubt it gets much traction given that the country is split about 50-50 on Obamacare. In addition, I'm fairly certain that a clear majority of Americans did get to keep their doctors.

Racial tensions may (or may not) be higher now but Obama deserves little or no blame for that. Personally, I'd blame his detractors (such as the Tea Party and folks like Sean Hannity) for stirring the racial pot.

There is plenty to criticize Obama about but there is also a lot to praise him for, imo. But then again, I approve of his politics.

[dobrojim]

getting back to more or less where we started...

BHO's HUD policy is a not hardly what is described in the article Popper quoted
which is pretty ironic considering he nearly simultaneously posted about how
liberals were constantly propagandizing.

Post all you want Popper but like I said before, accept that others are
equally free to comment, critique or refute. I stand by my original
observation that the quoted material was basically fear mongering
with a clearly racist undertone. Watch out white folk, that black
prez is gonna force 'undesirables' right into your midst and leave
you to deal with the clearly negative consequences.

You're free to have that interpretation and believe that that warning is reality based,
but please understand that others starting in very different place
from you are going to have a completely different interpretation.

I'm going to be away a few days while I go try to do something ridiculous
(run 100 miles in 30 hours or less) so I will leave you with this:

If we are going to make the most of what we have in this country,
we cannot continue to fall prey to fearmongering of the 'other'.
We must aspire to something higher than that as difficult as that
is given the biases that we have each developed.

review the 2nd 3 habits of Covey re interdependence which Covey identifies as a higher level
of personal achievement than the first 3 habit which center around independence which he
describes as a necessary first stage. It seems clear to me that our politics have gotten
way out of whack as far as these second set of 3 habits go. That's a shame.

FWIW, my fav habit is habit #5, seek first to understand, then to be understood.
I'm sure I fall short of that more often than I would hope to. It's a goal/journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People


4 - Think Win-Win
Genuine feelings for mutually beneficial solutions or agreements in your relationships. Value and respect people by understanding a "win" for all is ultimately a better long-term resolution than if only one person in the situation had gotten his way.

5 - Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
Use empathic listening to be genuinely influenced by a person, which compels them to reciprocate the listening and take an open mind to being influenced by you. This creates an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving.

6 - Synergize
Combine the strengths of people through positive teamwork, so as to achieve goals that no one could have done alone.

[popper]

getting back to more or less where we started...

BHO's HUD policy is a not hardly what is described in the article Popper quoted
which is pretty ironic considering he nearly simultaneously posted about how
liberals were constantly propagandizing.

Post all you want Popper but like I said before, accept that others are
equally free to comment, critique or refute. I stand by my original
observation that the quoted material was basically fear mongering
with a clearly racist undertone. Watch out white folk, that black
prez is gonna force 'undesirables' right into your midst and leave
you to deal with the clearly negative consequences.

You're free to have that interpretation and believe that that warning is reality based,
but please understand that others starting in very different place
from you are going to have a completely different interpretation.

I'm going to be away a few days while I go try to do something ridiculous
(run 100 miles in 30 hours or less) so I will leave you with this:

If we are going to make the most of what we have in this country,
we cannot continue to fall prey to fearmongering of the 'other'.
We must aspire to something higher than that as difficult as that
is given the biases that we have each developed.

review the 2nd 3 habits of Covey re interdependence which Covey identifies as a higher level
of personal achievement than the first 3 habit which center around independence which he
describes as a necessary first stage. It seems clear to me that our politics have gotten
way out of whack as far as these second set of 3 habits go. That's a shame.

FWIW, my fav habit is habit #5, seek first to understand, then to be understood.
I'm sure I fall short of that more often than I would hope to. It's a goal/journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People


4 - Think Win-Win
Genuine feelings for mutually beneficial solutions or agreements in your relationships. Value and respect people by understanding a "win" for all is ultimately a better long-term resolution than if only one person in the situation had gotten his way.

5 - Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
Use empathic listening to be genuinely influenced by a person, which compels them to reciprocate the listening and take an open mind to being influenced by you. This creates an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving.

6 - Synergize
Combine the strengths of people through positive teamwork, so as to achieve goals that no one could have done alone.

Jim - whether the subject is govt., politics, economics, philosophy, racial relations, etc., your views are important to me. I say this even though you, and several others on this thread, try as hard as you can to marginalize my conservative viewpoints. My wife, with advanced degrees in mathematics and philosophy thinks I'm crazy to even spend a minute of my time trying to influence anyone on this thread. Maybe I am wasting my time, but it's very difficult for me to give up on you and any other American that values freedom and liberty. I must admit I'm getting close though. I'm currently sorting memorabilia from 3 generations of Poppers that sacrificed everything for their country, serving in the Navy, Marine Corp and Army. I missed being drafted into the Vietnam war by 10 months and I'm thankful for that.

The country elected a community organizer with zero mgmt. experience. Prior to being elected, he wouldn't even be eligible for a mgmt position at Burger KIng (I think they require 2 yrs. of mgmt. experience). The majority of American voters are really, really, ignorant. Most of them don't know squat about history, economics or philosophy. This is easily verified by man-on-the-street interviews and polls if you care to look in to it. Although Bush had experience as a governor, he was also unqualified based on his sub-par intellect and life experience.

Obama's top adviser's (Valerie Jarrette) father, maternal grandfather, and father in-law have extensive FBI files documenting their communist affiliations. Obama's spiritual adviser damned the country you and your forefathers live in and perhaps died for. The current president and the one that preceded him are deeply flawed individuals and should be judged according to their deeds.

[dckingsfan]

As codified by the Fair Housing Act, we've collectively decided in this country that racial discrimination in housing is illegal. The 2010 review of Fair Housing Act enforcement indicated that racial discrimination is still prevalent. It's entirely appropriate for HUD to develop a response to that, and my reading of the rule they generated is that the agency's response is measured and reasonable.

Who did the review?

The Fair Housing Act doesn't decree that every single neighborhood in America have the exact same racial demographic distribution as the nation as a whole. It just says you can't discriminate on the basis of race. I'm in favor of that. I don't think real estate agents should be able to blackball black homebuyers from certain neighborhoods. Certainly, no zoning ordinance should be able to say that blacks can't move to certain areas (and I'm sure none of them do).

But zoning based on financial considerations is not based on race. Obama's interpretation of the Fair Housing Act seems to be that he has the right to use the Federal government to force low income housing right in the middle of wealthy neighborhoods and there's nothing that the wealthy neighborhood can do about it.

There's no reason why rich people shouldn't be able to form a community of rich people where they can hang out with rich people, go to rich people parties, hang out at the rich people pool, and have their kids go to rich people schools.

What's ironic about all this is that the true, unstated objective is to promote gentrification of the big cities. The liberals that run those cities are trying to get the blacks out.

I want to disagree with you on this one on an emotional basis - I would like to think that the government should ensure that minorities shouldn't be discriminated against.

But, then I look at what HUD has done with the loan process through Fannie and Freddy. Look at how much pain they have caused - they were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford. HUD helped fuel more of that risky lending and it hurt everyone.

In general, their social housing experiments have failed badly (see Chicago Public Housing). The urban housing development failures are legion. And this seems more of the same. More regulation without good outcomes.

I think we should always ask if a federal policy is doing more harm than good. I think HUD has been a failure over time. I would like to see the $60 billion Department of Housing and Urban Development go away. They played a key role in causing the housing boom and bust and then the recession in its wake. We should fine the banks that were involved and we should obliterate HUD.

[Induveca]

Dckingsfan, I couldn't agree more. These types of policies have destroyed a number of individuals/families I'm close with around the country.

"Living within your means" is a mantra people need to take to heart. On my street here in NY, a relatively wealthy block, there is one building that is "affordable housing". There is *zero* interaction amongst neighbors. The local public high school is already 95% brought in from uptown Manhattan via the subway every morning. Anyone with a solid family income sends their kids to private schools.

There comes a point when you have to realize awful parenting, having kids at 19 and broken homes lead to poverty. I've known kids with great parents who have excelled living in uptown manhattan (which I would argue is far more diverse in terms of residents than downtown/midtown Manhattan).

It's a cycle that will remain, everyone isn't cut out to be a wealthy executive. There must come a point where social guilt doesn't outweigh common sense.

[dckingsfan]

There must come a point where social guilt doesn't outweigh common sense.

Well, there you have it. And for HUD and their part in the housing fiasco - that was the end for me. I realized they were doing far more harm than good.