Obama wants to buldoze cities to save money and land

Obama wants to buldoze cities to save money and land

www.telegrap h.co.uk

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.

"Much of the land will be given back to nature. People will enjoy living near a forest or meadow," he said.

Mr Kildee acknowledged that some fellow Americans considered his solution "defeatist" but he insisted it was "no more defeatist than pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again".

(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh my, let's just forget about growing the nation. Give up. America needs to be reduced to the quivering shell that we actually are.

America needs to be "taken down" to a manageable size.

We suck.

Or we can stop the deranged madness that is being stuffed down our throats. Stop spending.
Get the government out of our lives.
And vote for a man who doesn't hate America.

www.telegrap h.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Alex Jones was talking about this before on his show and I thought he was nuts... turns out he was right.

He said sustainability means death or destruction... for the good of the environment.

Okay, we must stop these environmentally wacko types. Once and for all.

This is (expletive deleted)(expletive deleted)(expletive deleted)

So let me get this straight instead of giving the properties away to the many economically homeless, or instigating a social housing scheme that would bring in cash to support the community, they are going to pay for them to be demolished so that later after the recovery the construction companies will have a boom in rebuilding all the housing.

Oh yes and while we're at it we won't buy the normal houses and help families to stay in their homes, we'll buy from more affluent neighbourhoods where people are not struggling and pay them an inflated price so they can trade up to a bigger house.

This is just wrong! Obama is wrong. I had such high hopes for the future wwhen Obama won. I cried, even though I'm a bloke and I'm British and living in Britain. Each day more stuff comes to light to demonstrate it's business as usual, Bush has passed the baton and Obama has grabbed it enthusiastically.

S&F

[edit on 12-6-2009 by sharps]

Actually I hear that Obama wants to fill up abandoned buildings with pregnant women, douse them with white phosphorus then bulldoze them. Not only that, I heard he is going to ferment dead babies into a biofuel to power the bulldozers!! Stop the anti-christ NOW!!

Well.....everybody wanted a freakin change. Here it is.

Seems like a good idea to me. Why keep these homes around? some are foreclosed while others are in shambles from abandonment.

Theres nothing wrong with a little open space

His motives may or may not be against our best interests.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by phi1618]

Why demolish these homes and free the land up for green space? I think that is ludicrous. Why not give some contracts to area workers to spruce the places up and get them back on the market at a reduce price to get families into the homes.

There is nothing worse than an unoccupied home when there are families that would love to have a place to call there own instead of living in an apartment. So I say enough with the over inflated prices as we have seen in the past and lets occupy these abandoned residency with people instead of introducing them to demolition.

What a waste tearing down these homes because they are in foreclosure!! Or how about this, why don't the state and local government tax the crap out of banks when they let these places fall into disrepair and it will be reason for them to go the extra mile in keeping these places occupied instead of throwing people out when they have tough times.

reply to post by phi1618


I agree. Not an Obama fan, but there is no good use in abandoned, dilapidated homes. If people willingly move, I don't see the problem. I much rather see a meadow or field than the abandoned houses that are more and more common in my area. It would be fabulous if they could be fixed up to livable condition and given to homeless, but that may be prohibited by cost. Most American cities are heavily overcrowded and it is not a sustainable (in the dictionary definition) situation. Allowing more pockets of nature will make for less polluted air for the citizens of the cities.

I have no clue where you people are getting the idea that America needs to be reduced to a quivering shell - certainly not from the article I read. Bizarre interpretation...

you know, i actually predicted this.

Um, there is already a thread running with this article. scroll down.

It is a shame that so many homes are now vacant or in foreclosure, it is an even greater shame that so many people were coerced by the banks (and the governments) into buying houses that they could never afford if it were not for sub-prime mortgages and their ridiculous interest rates and 40+ year terms.

That the sub-prime mortgage fiasco went on so long unabated is the reason for the current dilemma that states and municipalities are now in. I would rather see some or many of these houses developed into affordable housing communities to shelter the homeless, but besides this, what can possibly be done? Development can not possibly go on for ever--their must be a downslope to every hill, this is it.

There is already a thread on this subject here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For every home that is destroyed and the land given "back to nature", I will pour one gallon of bleach in the river at Turner Falls Park. You can not stop me from doing this so do not even try. My demands are responsible government spending and a break from this enviro-craze that is going on. If my demands are not met then I will step up my attacks to 6 head and shoulder shampoo bottles......family sized.

As mentioned, there is already an existing thread topic here.


Closing...