Why social engineering doesn't work and a question.Follow

I thought mung was the gooey secretions that come out of a pregnant woman when you press on her belly.

A good strategy.

I'd heard in a psychology class back in college that white people only start to "worry" about minorities when they surpass 20% of the population in a given area. So a single minority or a single family moving in should have no effect whatsoever on property values outside of REALLY backwoods areas known for their racism.

If you were to sell your house because a minority moved in next door, or decided not to buy a house just because there was a minority next door, that's racism. Yes. what's your point?

Well, there were a few legitimate answers that you ignored. Typical

I still don't know what this mythical liberal creature is.

And no, most of the posts really were just making fun of you.

Edited, Jan 4th 2010 2:26pm by Xsarus

This sentence is not constructed properly, therefore your argument is invalid.



You forgot a period, you moron.

Actually, that's gbaji's M.O.

Sexism, which is also illegal when it comes to renting out properties.

It doesn't really have anything to do with minorities, except to the degree to which the sorts of home assistance programs are targeted at them. The real issue is that poor people from high-crime neighborhoods are provided subsidies to move into new middle class home developments, with the social theory that if you take the poor family out of the gang infested ghetto, they'll thrive and be successful. Decent theory, I suppose, but what actually happened (in large swaths of Riverside County for example), is that those poor families and their children *were* the gang members and drug dealers. The result was that they didn't get away from the gangs and drugs, but simply brought them into a new area at great expense to the state.

It was a moronic idea. It failed miserably. Not only did the taxpayers lose tons of money, but legitimate homeowners who bought into those neighborhoods not knowing what was going on with the home subsidy plan effectively got screwed. The only thing they accomplished was to take neighborhoods which could have been nice places to live and turn them into expensive ghettos. Property values plummeted (before the housing bubble collapsed btw), graffiti and blight appeared, everyone who could moved out, and the poor folks who'd been placed there stayed because they had no more choice than they'd had before.


It's a great example of the typical liberal "cart before the horse" mentality. Home ownership in a nice middle class neighborhood is correlated to low crime and good employment not because the homes make people not commit crime and keep their jobs, but because overwhelmingly only people who don't commit crimes and who keep good jobs can afford to live there. High crime raters in poor neighborhoods aren't caused by the low property values, but by the fact that most criminals end out poor. Kinda obvious if you think about it, but someone apparently thought it worked the other way around...

Liberals and Democrats forced him to do it. That's always the answer. Party of personal responsibility, hooray!

It was, at the very least, a bi-partisan action, and one which I assume you agreed with at the time. If your message is that Bush was wrong when he did something which most Conservatives disagree with, and most Liberals agree with, you'll get no argument from me. I've been saying this all along. What's so amusing about your continued attempts within this context is that had someone pointed this action out to you back in 2004, your certain response would have been something like: "He's just doing that for political reasons. He doesn't really care about poor and minority home ownership"...


I'm curious though. The article says he's going to ask Congress to lower the requirements. Did Congress do it?