"Americans must have Healthy Housing"...so says Obama...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Ma'am, most people living in those conditions don't want to be their and are aware of how they are living.

Well then, what's wrong with at least making sure they are living in safe conditions? Sometimes these people start to not care anymore, so maybe this initiative will remind them that the safety of their families is paramount. There are things you can do that don't cost a lot of money. You don't have to have a fancy house to have a safe house.

The fact is, this project is not some evil plan to infiltrate every American's home and take away your freedoms. Sheesh...

This is just not govt's job. You are promoting the Nanny State with all it's ramifications, which apparently you do not see yet.

It's the same thing with all the BS equality propaganda going on now. People just can't figure life out on their own so govt has to step in and make sure everyone is ok.

Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about this type of Totalitarian Nanny State. He called it "Liberal Fascism".

edit on 13-2-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Well, nobody else seems to be doing the job. Whose job is it? There are people with cancer who can't work or pay their bills. There are people with mental illness who can't work or feed their family. Whose job is it to help those who are in trouble?

reply to post by kaylaluv


There is a point where centralized planning cannot help everyone and everything, that is the part you are missing. Welfare was supposed to be a temporary situation for people, not a way of life for everyone. You seem to have bought in to the idea that the federal govt can and should fix everyone's problems, as Obama says he thinks "It;s the right thing to do"....but is it really? Only people who buy into the socialist utopia believe the fantasy.

If it goes anything like Obamacare, what will happen is that if you don't have the repairs that the government says must be done to your home taken care of, you will be met with a "tax".

Of course, if you can't afford to do this, they could always also give you the ultimatum of do the repairs or have the government seize your home, which you will then be fined for every day you are out of it for "vagrancy".

This is just off the top of my head, and it's just another attack on the poor and middle class.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Understand that there are already federal guidelines for heath issues in new buildling construction as well has rehab, and renovation.

More laws when they already have laws for that?

The laws are severely lacking. I just read an article yesterday that banks are reselling homes that were used as meth labs. They are filled with toxic chemicals that make you extremely sick. It's much more common than you would think.
if the government doesn't pass laws stopping this practice, do you really think the banks are going to stop?

The govt already does not take care of the Projects, what makes anyone think they will do a better job of any other kind of housing plan?

Here's an article about some public housing in my old home town....note the idealism and the reality

THE filmmakers behind “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” confronted a formidable task: to strip away the layers of a narrative so familiar that even they themselves believed it when they first set out to make their documentary. Erected in St Louis, Missouri, in the early 1950s, at a time of postwar prosperity and optimism, the massive Pruitt-Igoe housing project soon became a notorious symbol of failed public policy and architectural hubris, its 33 towers razed a mere two decades later. Such symbolism found its most immediate expression in the iconic image of an imploding building, the first of Pruitt-Igoe's towers to be demolished in 1972 (it was featured in the cult film Koyaanisqatsi, with Philip Glass's score murmuring in the background). The spectacle was as powerful politically as it was visually, locating the failure of Pruitt-Igoe within the buildings themselves—in their design and in their mission.

The complex was supposed to put the modernist ideals of Le Corbusier into action; at the time, Architectural Forum ran a story praising the plan to replace “ramshackle houses jammed with people—and rats” in the city's downtown with “vertical neighbourhoods for poor people.” The main architect was Minoru Yamasaki, who would go on to design another monument to modernism that would also be destroyed, but for very different reasons, and under very different circumstances:

The promise of Pruitt-Igoe's early years was swiftly overtaken by a grim reality. Occupancy peaked at 91% in 1957, and from there began its precipitous decline. By the late 1960s the buildings had been denuded of its residents, the number of windows broken to the point where it was possible to see straight through to the other side. The residents that remained had to act tough for the chance to come and go unmolested.

www.economist.com...

Public Housing....so you Nanny Staters think that now Barry can do it better if only the rest of American taxpayers were on board with it????

reply to post by Jeremiah65


Leaky roof? What about the quality of tv. Just finished watching the Bachelor with my gf . Shawn booted Tierra bc she can't get along with the other girls. Dez is fairly hot but the chemistry is between Shawn and Leslie whom he gropes. We really are distracted by this stuff.

reply to post by Golf66


Excellent post and excellent point. I wish more people could see where things like this lead. It is not "law" now...but once you open the door a crack, they get their foot in and push it the rest of the way open.

I don't consider being cautious of our Nanny/Police state as being paranoid...I consider it being cautious and wise. If some folks cannot see how this fits right into the Agenda 21 and concentrating people into controllable surroundings...I just can't help you. It might not and prob won't happen next month or next year...but it will happen. It's the frog in the water story. They drop you (the frog) in a pan of water and slowly turn up the heat. If they dropped you right into the boiling water, you...like the frog...will scream and leap out. But if they slowly turn the heat up...the frog (and you) will just sit there and do nothing until it is boiled. Rarely do they hammer super harsh change right away (though they are getting bolder thanks to the dumbed down and distracted masses)...they generally slowly chip things away while no one is noticing.

I am not against people having decent shelter...i am against how things like this can be turned from a good idea into a weapon of control...and that is usually not that big of a leap.

Not to mention...who is going to pay for this? The taxpayers? The poor family that can barely afford to eat now? Those that think this is a great idea are totally missing the downside/darkside here...and there is one...take the blinders off and think for a few...

Ok guys, here it is, a webpage discussing Habitat II(read:Agenda 21) and Obama's plan for healthy housing....

www.crossroad.to...

Oh Americans must have healthy housing? Tell that to the banks that funded your campaign that keep kicking people out of their homes.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by Golf66

 

Excellent post and excellent point. I wish more people could see where things like this lead. It is not "law" now...but once you open the door a crack, they get their foot in and push it the rest of the way open.

I learned about Agenda 21 here on ATS a few years ago and since have been doing research on how it is being stealth implemented under different names in the US without people being the wiser.

I see its effects here in rural Missouri very time an old farmer dies off - I go to the land auctions a lot hoping to stumble into a good deal. However, what happens is the large factory operations are gobbling up all the land at a rapid rate and they don't seem to be overly concerned with price either. They will bid 2x the going rate sometimes. I am always scared when I bid up the price on them that I might get stuck with a ridiculous bid but thus far all I am doing is driving up their costs. They buy every time.

I managed to get a good plot two farms down from mine because I had a relationship with the family (I had been helping the old couple (late 70's married for 50+ years) with their chores and such since their kids lived out of State and had no interest). The old guy finally passed on (two months after the Mrs. like so often happens). He just shut down - it was fairly sad. I was the one who found him and called his boy. I offered to buy the farm right there as is at the full bank appraisal price. He was happy it stayed in a small farmer’s hands.

I let my dairy manager have the house to live in as part of his pay so I could have someone on the property I trust. We have a contract that in addition to his 401k matching if he stays for 20 years with me I will deed the house and 5 acres to him as a retirement. I helped him and his family immigrate (Legally BTW) from Mexico. He is a fantastic man and I have never met a harder working couple. Loyalty is a wonderful thing.