Friday, September 6, 2013

Roosevelt Island Amish Farmers Market Now Accepting Credit And EBT Cards

A Roosevelt Island tradition for many of us is a Saturday Farmers Market walk to purchase fresh fruit, vegetables and other good stuff as well as to chat with our friends and neighbors. Unfortunately, the Roosevelt Island Amish Farmers Market did not offer the convenience of accepting credit card transactions. As reported in this 2010 post:

...I'd like to see all of Roosevelt Island's merchants, including the Farmers Market vendors, using Square or something similar to it. Would be very convenient....
That has now changed.


Last week, Israel Wengerd told me that the Amish Market is now accepting credit card and EBT transactions.


Grow NYC has more on the acceptance of EBT payments at Farmers Markets and here's how to become a vendor at the Roosevelt Island Farmers Market.

138 comments :

billblass said...

This is good but a lot of people on this island getting food stamps and there are lots and lots of people
Getting food stamps I wish I was one of them these people will not be useing them here because they will try to hide the fact that they use them from the other people living on the island.they all play their little games
People you never though get food stamps they like to keep it under cover

billblass said...

I see people in cosco useing food stamps and I know damm Well they should not be getting food stamps. Its all a game

billblass said...

In 2000 the us gov accountability office catalogned examples of waste fraud and abuse In just about every federal do gooder program .in all the cost to the. Tax payers is estimated at some 100 billion a year.and things are only likely to get worse.

Westviewer said...

Hoboken Farms is the best retail on Roosevelt Island.

CheshireKitty said...

Bill, can you please explain the above outburst against folks that receive EBT? What is wrong with getting Food Stamps if a person qualifies/needs them? There are strict guidelines for receiving Food Stamps; obviously, just as with all programs - Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc. - there will always be those who will try to illegally obtain benefits and thus defraud the gov. Every day we hear of big Medicare fraud rings including drs that are busted by l/e. However, it is not so easy for an individual to obtain the relatively scanty benefits of Food Stamps. If you do not qualify (and it certainly sounds like you would not given that you are nearly maxing out of Sec 8) why complain about those who do?


Of course Costco accepts Food Stamps - as do many Farmers Markets. There is no "shame" in applying for and receiving benefits under this program. It isn't a handout - it's a gov benefit that makes feeding a family slightly easier for those in straightened circumstances.


You remind me of conservatives that complain about the existence of parking lots in public housing projects. Why shouldn't residents of public housing own cars? If they can afford to own a car, they should certainly have a right to own one, just like anyone else. There are many soul-less, bitter people, who would relegate poor people to a cold, hard, bitter existence - perhaps in a chilly cave with no comforts at all,just nibbling on bread crusts and sipping stagnant water, with no means of transportation except broken down bicycles, and no clothing other than filthy rags. This is what the ultra conservatives have in mind for those who fall off the middle class treadmill or even just ages out of it by means of retirement. I'm surprised you, Bill, voiced such a negative comment about Food Stamp use - since you are usually so vocal in supporting the ongoing struggles of the low to moderate income families in Eastwood.

billblass said...

I am talking about the people I Know should not be getting Food stamps And the welfare checks I am talking about the people ripping Off the gov.. My mother gets food stamps

KTG said...

Perfect example of how disconnected you are in this response. If you are in public housing in a an urban environment there is no way you should own a car, as an example if you are in Ravenswood near a couple of bus and train lines why should you have a car. If you are dependent on state or federal aid you should be tightening your belt and saving to get off public assistance, I don't think there is anything wrong with a safety net but you advocating for long term support with no constraints. Most sensible people working expect social safety net to be emergent short term aid, not long term unconditional.


I also find it a weird logic loop you are in one of your prior posts. If people need affordable housing because NYC no longer offers type of industrial / production work , what the benefit of keeping people near a job market they are unable to stay gainfully employed in?


A quick question did UA ask for Section8 & LAP when they boot RL/Eastwood or was an affordability plan a condition of the purchase?

KTG said...

Can I ask a question, I remember in a post that you said you wife and kids don't work because of income restrictions. Its my understanding a lot of childcare workers (both full time nannies and babysitters) on island are paid cash, and it seems that people are always looking. So how hard have these income options been looked at?

billblass said...

Ck let's be honest there is a lot of fraud going on

billblass said...

Good idea but then they will not be good americans by not paying taxes
You are saying they should become law breaker to save my apartment.right

KTG said...

No, just trying to get you to prove my point that you are not tying as hard as you can to stand in your own 2 feet. You really need to man up.

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, this is risky, for the employer to not properly hire a nanny, pay tax, etc. All off the books jobs are risky. However, there are tons of people getting paid probably sub-minimum wages/no benefits - throughout the City, especially in the delis/small businesses etc/restaurants (dishwashers etc).

CheshireKitty said...

If his wife took the job legally, if the employer paid taxes etc., and if the job paid minimum, then the amount of the job might not equal the monthly voucher amount. It might not be worth it for that reason.

CheshireKitty said...

But how can you be certain they should not be getting Food Stamps? Looks can be deceiving. If you are concluding they should not be receiving Food Stamps based on externals such as stylish clothing or even a flashy car, their circumstances may nevertheless still be such that they qualify for food stamps. Perhaps there are many other people in those households who do not dress quite as smartly, or have cars. Unless you are really in another person's shoes, it is probably impossible to be certain that the other person doesn't qualify.

billblass said...

I have man up all my life always supported my family never got food stamps no gov help at all until this mess with sec 8 in which i never wanted only in america can you be forced to recive s gov handout I am very upset with this if you think I got a chance to fix this mess I am willing to hire a lawyer

billblass said...

I personly know these people living on the island

KTG said...

Missing the point Bill or Joe what ever he wants to be known as is type of guy who always going to whine about his lot in life and take little accountability.


My father came to this country with less than equivalent of high school diploma put 4 kids into college and bought 2 homes. He is the first one to rail against social inequities to his white collar children but also reminds us that anything worth having requires work.

billblass said...

So what doses that have to do with me I don't understand you I

KTG said...

Bill what will a lawyer do that moving into a market rate apartment somewhere else wouldn't address. Or even better having your wife take an off the books childcare job at 600-700 a week and save up to try and buy a place.


My problem is not with your situation its with your attitude referring to your neighbors who pay for the privilege to live here so they can be close to both their children and there jobs.

I still am trying to figure out if UA was forced into an affordability plan or chose it? If they were coerced or encouraged by RIOC & NYS then of course they took preference for section 8 or LAP because it allows them to collect more rent. That problem with program

CheshireKitty said...

KTG: Ravenswood is near a train line? No really - unless you count a walk of nearly a mile as being "close". Ravenswood, Queensbridge, all the projects at the Western edge of Brooklyn and Queens aren't particularly close to the subway lines - that is why all these projects provide free parking for residents. Why would you deny a car to a project dweller, who may need the car to commute to a job in another borough that perhaps pays minimum, or not much above it? For millions in the City of NY - especially in remote areas such as Red Hook, the Rockaways, which are filled with public housing projects that include free parking, cars are a necessity, not a luxury.


There are plenty of people throughout the city who own cars even if they live in Manhattan, or areas of Brooklyn and Queens that are close to mass transit. They will never give up their cars - even if they use mass transit to commute. The project dweller are no different and have the same reasons they will never give up their cars: They get the ability to have transportation on demand to areas not easily accessible by mass transit, they get the ability to haul goods that are too awkward/heavy to carry by hand, they get to haul family members around, etc etc. We all know why people own cars - no point in re-explaining it; project dwellers are no different.


To qualify for an apt in a project, you must have a very low income. There are waiting lists to get into projects. An applicant's income is carefully checked. However, having a low income doesn't preclude car ownership. For example, a car owner with a low income may not drive all that much; thus, their fuel/oil/maintenance cost may be minimal. A car owner with a low income may be driving an old car and may keep a car for many years, as opposed to changing cars every 2 or 3 years. It's incredibly insensitive and cruel to deny project dwellers cars, just because they are low income people. Imagine if a low income person in a rural area not served by any mass transit whatsoever was denied the use of a car. There would be no way that person could get to a job, or transport sick family members, or young children etc. What you are saying is absolutely inhuman - of course there should be parking provided at projects, as there is currently.


As far as the weird logic loop of situating working people near industrial jobs. That is fine - I accept your logic. Unfortunately, the industrial jobs have all relocated to China/other areas of Asia. Do you suggest we just ship all of our working class people off to Asia? Hahaha...


In answer to your final question: Probably the latter. If there had been no affordability plan, then there would have been mass evictions, which would have given Gov. Pataki a black eye. The same problem occurred when the landlord was threatening to implement unfair sub metering - the result would have been mass evictions. The one thing the State does not want to see is mass evictions. You will get guaranteed demonstrations, sit-ins, hunger strikes, etc. if mass evictions were ever contemplated - and any politician associated with such a negative outcome would see their career go down the toilet. That is why mass evictions are anathema and avoided by any means possible. If you just suggest mass evictions, it's like the politicians have stepped on the 3rd rail - they will avoid it at all costs!

CheshireKitty said...

But you must know their financial circumstances - do you know all the details of their finances?

billblass said...

Yes i do

CheshireKitty said...

KTG: It's very costly to pay for a market rate 2 BR apt. Anyway, he could just stay at Eastwood and start paying the market rate rent on his current apt if he wanted to do that.


Well, Bill does sometimes refer in negative terms to the market rate neighbors on RI, that is true - but imagine how bitter he must be, locked into a program he never wanted, basically forced to remain poor.


UA wasn't the landlord at the time of exit. It was Belson, the developer. The building changed hands a few times after Belson privatized the building. Look up Putnam Portfolio in Google. Eastwood was part of the Putnam Portfolio - one of the biggest residential r/e transactions in the City of NY; that's how inflated the price of the building became after being bought and sold a few times. That is why the current owner must meet certain criteria of his business plan, or try to sell the building - by continually jacking up rents, imposing unfair sub metering, using trumped up criminal charges to evict Sec 8 tenants. UA has an entire legal dept focused on getting rid of poor or LAP tenants and replacing them with "trendy" market rate tenants - the yuppies. Then once the building has been transformed into a mecca for the rich, they will sell the building, hopefully for a giant profit.

billblass said...

Oh I am whining really how would you feel if something unjust happend to you

CheshireKitty said...

Sure, my dad did the same thing: Not only did he not have a college education, he didn't even speak English when he immigrated to the US. Yet, he took a cold-water flat in a crummy part of town (above a bar) saved every dime, and was able in a few years to save enough to put down a down payment on a house. However, in those days - the 50s - housing prices actually were low enough for a factory worker like my dad to be able to buy a house. Do you really think a factory worker today would be able to do the same thing? Hmm? Since then, housing prices have risen faster than wages - that, KTG, is the problem.


Of course we should all work, save money, and buy r/e. But look at the disconnect today as opposed to the olden days: The skilled industrial jobs are gone, mostly, leaving jobs that pay minimum. On minimum, not only can you not afford to save to buy a house, you cannot even rent an apt these days (much less contemplate starting a family).

CheshireKitty said...

KTG - Bill is right. Imagine if you were forced to accept Sec 8 benefits, as a condition of keeping your apt? That's not right - yet that is exactly what happened to Bill.

CheshireKitty said...

It isn't easy to game the welfare system. You are saying they are hiding income, possibly by working off the books. If that's the case, then we all know this happens from coast to coast - from the farm workers to the deli workers. There is no way this system is going to end although it should. Millions of undocumented immigrants come to the US willing to work for very little in cash - businesses rely on their labor... it happens continually even though it's wrong.

billblass said...

Ck I have a 3 bedroom market rent 3400 .also I am not maxing om sec 8 because I try hard to keep my income low

CheshireKitty said...

That's a moderate/average price for a 3 BR these days. Not saying I could afford it of course but rents on 3 BRs go a lot higher than that. I don't see how you could afford to pay it on your current income, so you have to keep your income low in order to keep your current apt.


Had you been a LAP tenant, the landlord would not have doubled the rent back in '05, and you would not have been forced to accept the voucher (to help you pay the new rent). Had you been a LAP tenant, you could try to earn more money, advance, etc. It was terribly unfair that the LAP was not applied building-wide on building exit. But, that was the landlord's choice - to go for the big bucks by converting the building into a luxury rental. What did he care about what the voucher would eventually mean to the hundreds of families forced to accept it in '05.

billblass said...

Yea but I whine too much I juSt should be happy with this mess And say nothimg

KTG said...

Actually not true their is a significant shortage of manufacturing workers at high-end not college M/E and C/S type but still skill labor.Unfortunately american education system is under-employing making these jobs hard to fill

KTG said...

sorry missed typed american education system is under-performing

KTG said...

Again I would move, rather than accept any income cap.

Frank Farance said...

KTG, largely agree with your points, and billblass is fibbing, there's so many inconsistencies in what he says.


However, the point about cars is an interesting one. Aside from it being a non-issue outside of NYC (the US is a car culture), a car can be necessary in the outer boroughs.


Most of my car use is trips to the kids' school (less than 10 minutes), but to go via subway or bus is about 45-55 minutes each way, and it is more expensive to use mass transit (really). Other parents and staff at the school need cars for short trips that would be impractical via mass transit. For example, there are sole-practitioners, who make small amounts of money going from job to job - people that could easily be on Section 8, and they'd make less money if they didn't have a car. As another example, a parent without a car might have to pay for day care (with all the transit delays), so the car can reduce costs. Having a car increases their profitability in these examples. The question isn't about increasing expenses, the question is about increasing profitability, which gets to your point: more money available.



I'm not saying a car always makes sense, I'm saying it makes sense and increases profitability in some circumstances.

billblass said...

Frank these are the facts
Sec 8 have income. Limits go over the limit lose the sec .8.pay market rent with no help from sec8. No need to fibb

CheshireKitty said...

Well, maybe that's you - but that didn't happen with over 1,000 families in Eastwood.


They were confronted with a choice: Either accept Sec 8 (with its conditions) so that the new doubled rent could be affordable, or try to quickly find a similarly-priced "affordable" apt (hah!) pay for your move, uproot yourself from your community, the entire community/neighborhood is destroyed, etc etc.


Anyway, it wasn't the intention of Belson or the State of New York to effect mass evictions on building exit. The State of NY & Belson didn't want hundreds of families to move out because they would have to accept the income cap of Sec 8. Belson & the State were perfectly happy to pour State money into the building - thereby condemning hundreds of families to an ongoing limbo of perpetual enforced poverty.

CheshireKitty said...

The only issue is that you are conflicted as you approach the income limit. If you exceed it in your present pay range, you will nonetheless find it difficult to pay the rent of $3,400 on a 3-BR, if you lose the voucher. You want the LAP extended to all in Eastwood - or at least the option of LAP extended to families that may exceed the Sec 8 income limit. This is a very reasonable demand.


You should organize a committee within your building, get in touch with tenants organizations that might help you hire a lawyer, get elected officials interested in your committee and pursue the matter either in negotiations or, if that doesn't work out, in court.

billblass said...

Do you think this can win in court

Frank Farance said...

billblass: Your fibbing comes from telling us that you try to keep your income low, yet you tell us you missed the cutoff by $300 (which would put your income at around $67K, pretty high), and you tell us you made more money than many LAP tenants. Now you tell us "I have a 3 bedroom market rent 3400 .also I am not maxing om sec 8 because I try hard to keep my income low ", so you're paying $3,400 a month market rate, i.e., you're actually not Section 8 housing, right? Because if you were Section 8, then you'd be earning $136,000, right? So something isn't right about your stories ... fibbing, right?

CheshireKitty said...

The basis of the court case must be proving that the GDP is still governing the direction of development, the ratio of moderate income to high income units, on the island. Everything will follow from that.


No matter who is the current owner of Eastwood, no matter if UA did or didn't sign the exit agreement - it doesn't matter: Development, the allocation of units, the economic mix on the island, must be shown to remain largely under State control as embodied by the GDP.


Once a developer signs on to build on RI, he is subject to the GDP and anyone that subsequently buys a building on RI is also subject to the GDP.


This is what makes RI unique. Many other developments do not have a GDP (although there may be some that have a similar document - I just don't know). On RI, at least, there is an explicit set of rules that must be followed by building owners and developers: The GDP.


You or your committee, elected officials, and the landlord must first try negotiations to get the landlord to voluntary agree to let those exiting Sec 8 to enter the LAP; that will mean the landlord must drastically lower the rents on those units. If the landlord does not agree (doesn't acknowledge that the GDP must be followed in maintaining the economic mix on the island) then the committee must get the Legal Aid Society to take on the case. Or, it's possible an elected official may pursue the matter in court, in which case they will represent your interests all the way through to filing/pleading the case in court etc., including subsequent appeals if necessary.


It is my impression though that the GDP, as well as the RIOC law, cannot be questioned, as the RIOC law was enacted in Albany, is an established law that must be respected etc. RIOC was implemented to carry out the program of the GDP.


This, at least, was the way the lawmakers in Albany wanted the island developed - as a mixed income community, not a gentrified enclave.


Unless someone can show that Southtown and Octagon offset the loss of affordable housing in Eastwood, then the Eastwood owner does not have much of a case in insisting that Sec 8 tenants must lose their apts if their income exceeds the Sec 8 limits if they cannot come up with the inflated, un-affordable, market rate rent.


Every affordable unit in Eastwood must be retained - unless 7, 8, and 9 are going to be affordable, and there is no sign of that from Kramer, other than the usual 20% affordable etc. The City formula of 20% affordable cannot over-ride the State RIOC law as embodied in the GDP. This reasoning must be laid out in negotiating with the landlord, or in court. If this was a court case before a jury, then I'm certain the jury would find with the committee/elected official bringing the case because it is crystal clear that RIOC, which still is the governing body of RI, was set up by Albany to carry out the detailed program of the will of State as set forth in the GDP, up to and until the end of the sub-lease with the City of NY.


The alternative is to put the entire RIOC law to a a vote in Albany. If the Legislature decides RIOC is outdated and RI should be turned into a high income enclave - go the route that Bloomberg has in mind for NYC - then so be it. Let RI be absorbed into NYC. Let Bloomberg take over. Let the GDP fall into obsolescence. Maybe we need more million-dollar condos on RI as if there aren't enough of them in NYC already.


If you ask me though, Cuomo is not going to let RI go just like that - especially not to Bloomberg's control - especially not with the political climate as it is today, with the surging popularity of DeBlasio, the direct antithesis of Bloomberg.

CheshireKitty said...

Frank: What I think Bill means is that the rent on his apt is 3,400/mo - the market rate rent that is charged to any occupant of the apt except for LAP tenants. It's the rent the landlord has set, the market rate rent. Bill is paying 1/3 of his income to rent, the rest of the 3,400 monthly rent is picked up by the voucher.


If when the building exited he missed the cutoff by $300, my question to Bill is: How did you manage to keep you income just below the cutoff since then? Did you have to switch jobs, or not accept raises? Or do you work part-time or part of the year? Maybe Bill is a seasonal worker. Maybe Bill is a cab driver and has the ability to work only so much, so that he still is under the limit.

billblass said...

Why do you think my income was 67k And I missed it by 300 where did you get that number from
.don't you understand it went by how many people in the household as I said before I was making more money than many people This was a good move by nelson bevause it put many people into sec8 who rrally dont need it they should give it to as you say needy people
Belson was smart more people im sec8 more marlrt rent apattments for him. What a joke that thid agreement went thru aldany.for the taxpayerd are paying

billblass said...

I keep chaging jobs the lower the pay the lower the rent as my pay on all the jobs I have had has never been the amount to let me lget off of Sec 8 better to keep the sec 8 than lose it And than I lose the apartment do you think any of my jobs would have paid me enough to pay 3400 rent no way I am a slave to sec 8 like most people in eastwoofd

billblass said...

This is how all this began as people don't want their kids to work because they can lose their sec 8

billblass said...

This sounds like it will take years

billblass said...

Belson And the people who Got lap are the big winners

CheshireKitty said...

Not necessarily.


A good way to start is to write our your critique of the exit agreement on paper, in the form of a letter or manifesto addressed to Ms. Charlene Indelicato, the Pres. of RIOC, with a cc to Gov. Andrew Cuomo. This document can be as lengthy and detailed as you like, and it can even include within it, the entire GDP, which you can comment upon/annotate as you wish.


You can begin by attending the upcoming RIOC Board meeting on Sept 12 at at 5:30 p.m. at Manhattan Park Community Center and reading the letter to Ms. Indelicato and the RIOC Board (before also handing over the letter to the Board at the meeting).


This should start the ball rolling on having the exit agreement reconsidered by the current RIOC administration/Cuomo.


If UA is not abiding by the GDP - if the exit agreement did not preserve the income diversity of the island as mandated by the GDP - then RIOC/State of New York should step in to negotiate the necessary change with UA even if he never signed the exit agreement (since he is nevertheless subject to the GDP).


The most influential player IMO is the State of NY as the enforcer of the provisions of the GDP. The State must and can tell UA to amend the exit agreement.


To give more "teeth" to your letter, you could, after you write the letter, go around and collect a number of signatures on the letter. This will show that you have popular backing for your position.


If you have any worries about the landlord retaliating against you/signers of the letter/whistle-blowers, which is, incidentally, illegal, then you can keep you name/the names of the signers confidential (list them in index form on the letter and keep the real names confidential) and only reveal them to the addressees in confidence if requested instead of disclosing the names publicly. You could explain that the names are being kept confidential out of fear of retaliation by the landlord.


This is how I would start: By putting the problem squarely in the lap of the State of NY/Indelicato/Cuomo. You can recommend in the letter that Indelicato negotiate with UA on the exit agreement provisions as they pertain to the income diversity on RI and the preservation of affordable housing on RI, in accordance with the GDP.


Once you have "challenged" the State of NY to do something to protect the dream of income diversity/affordable housing on RI, then you can wait about 30 days to see if Indelicato/RIOC does anything. If they do nothing, you can begin complaining a number of ways about their lack of action. You may need to do this on various fronts until they finally do something, get involved in this crucial aspect of the development of the island: Even though the exit agreement was signed 8 years ago, we can say today, in hindsight, it was flawed and not completely in accordance with the provisions of the GDP. Since UA is subject to the GDP - since the island is still under the control of the State of NY - then RIOC can re-open the subject with UA and request that the Sec 8 tenants that exceed the income limit be given the option to transfer to LAP, with their rents lowered according to what they would have been paying had they been in LAP all along. That number should not be too difficult to calculate since it would be the rent on exit + any rent increases that went into effect post the exit.

Frank Farance said...

billblass: LAP is not based upon number of people, it's just based upon present rent and RGB+1%. Section 8 is based upon number of people and income. If you were eligible for Section 8, then you were put in Section 8.


You said you were $300 short of being in LAP. With a 4-person configuration, in 2007 the Section 8 (enhanced voucher) limit was $67,300. Had you made $67,301 you would have been in LAP because you were ineligible for Section 8 at $67,301. Thus, your income was $67,000, i.e., the income limit ($67,300) minus the $300 you told us you were short of the limit.



The LAP program here is just like the others around the City. The M-L exit Eastwood got was similar to others around the City. What Mr. Vass got for you was a plan that applied to *City* M-L and convinced people to apply it to *State* M-L (there was no equivalent State-wide LAP program, the WIRE buildings were/are State M-L).


The problems you complain about are the quirks of the program in all of these LAP/Sec8-based exits.


Regardless, you have no specific suggestions to propose (giving you LAP is a non-starter because of the finances of the building). And the presentation of your position (e.g., keeping your income low) sounds like you're hiding income ... people who appear to act fraudulently rarely carry any weight in arguments on policy.

CheshireKitty said...

Frank has clarified the issue here very well. It seems that the "band-aid" selected upon building exit was a common "fix" for City M-L buildings. However, on RI, there are special circumstances that should have been taken into account. The similarity with City M-L developments ends when you consider that Eastwood is part of the small, carefully planned community of RI - not just a drop within larger mega-neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side, or Harlem, or Red Hook etc. The one size its all approach didn't necessarily fit Eastwood, since RI is not exactly like the City M-Ls.


Re Bill. He says he missed the cutoff by 300, so it seems plausible that his household income at exit was around 67K. If he had only managed to include 300 more, he would have been put into LAP. It seems to me Bill knew the cutoff point for Sec 8 vs LAP and may have preferred to be in Sec 8. Bill: Tell us honestly - isn't this what happened? You knew you would be placed in Sec 8 if you put down that your income was below 67.3K? You wanted the voucher because you thought then it was a better deal? Isn't that right? Now, years later, you realize you made a mistake but there is no way to reverse your decision, unless the exit agreement is changed.


I wouldn't say Bill is hiding income. Bill may be working independently - maybe Bill is a seasonal worker. We don't know the particulars of Bill's employment situation. It is not possible to say Bill is hiding income or involved in Sec 8 fraud without knowing all the details of Bill's finances. Also, would Bill really draw attention to himself in these discussions on the blog if he were really defrauding the gov? Since that is unlikely, I have to believe that Bill is just an unhappy victim of circumstance - stuck in a program that at first seemed favorable, but later was revealed as a mechanism designed to keep him and hundreds of other families, in poverty, forever dependent on the voucher - because of the sky high rents otherwise.

billblass said...

I don't think rioc will help in this matter they don't care

Frank Farance said...

CK: contrary to billblass, there is still incentive to work under Sec8. Even McJobs would pay the difference for him. With $73K income, it's $1825 rent. Market rate rent is $3400, the difference is $1575, which is $18,900 annually - his son could work at McJobs and make about that, and since billblass keeps his income low, that means he has control to NOT keep his income low, and add another (say) $200/mo. At that point, although he would be paying market rent, he is actually making more money after his market rate rent is paid.

The point here is to bust billblass' myth that Sec8 is a disincentive for his son to work. His son should work, which would make more available income for the whole family than had he not worked.

OldRossie said...

wait, he earned $67k? and my tax money is paying his rent? what a system... You're saying he could make $73 and pay $1825 in rent? How about getting off the island all together, paying a market rent of $1825 (see astoria) and stop spending my tax money.

Frank Farance said...

Yes OldRossie, the Sec8 sticky voucher limits in 2013 is $73,000, in 2007 it was $67,300. billblass said he missed the cutoff by $300, which makes his income $67,000. The balance between the $1825 (Sec8 rent he pays) and the $3400 (market rate) is $1575, which is the subsidy HUD provides the landlord. The Section 8 Enhanced Vouchers (aka Sticky Vouchers) have limits up to 95% of Area Median Income. The limits are based upon the number of people living in the apartment. My numbers for billblass are based upon a 4-person family (which he didn't dispute), and he's in a 3-bedroom apartment.

What is troubling is that he actually could have had LAP (finding another $300 of income shouldn't have been hard), but I'm guessing (as CK points out) that he was well aware of the differences, both short-term (lower initial rents with Sec8) and long-term (no income cap on LAP, so LAP is better long-term).


And I'm guessing that he felt that he could manipulate his income, as he says: "I am not maxing out of sec 8 I am not a fool I keep my income low for this reason so belive Me i am no ones fool".


But really, he could be paying market rate rent, with his son working, and be making more money after paying market rate rent.


However, the problem with billblass is that he's not really telling the truth, as has been exposed many times, he's just out their to ping people. Fortunately, we listened to billblass, investigated this, and some of us (including me) learned a thing or two about Eastwood and their housing subsidies.

CheshireKitty said...

Rossie: In 2005, Bill missed getting into the LAP by 300. Thus, his total family income was 67. What does that equal per mo? About 5.5K - pre-tax. Let me assure you that Bill wasn't taking home 5.5K per mo. He probably was only taking home at the most 4. Of that 4, he'd have to pay 3.4 to rent. That leaves him 6C for him and his family to live on per mo. Even 2 people can hardly live on that much per month.


Also,look at the ratio of what Bill must pay if he was to pay the market rate rent: It is way more than a third of his income - in fact, he'd be paying 2/3 of his income to rent.


As we all know, market rate rent does not take into account family composition. Taking into account the fact that Bill has to support a family of 4 (including himself) does it make sense for Bill to take the bread out of his kids' mouths' and give it instead to Eisenberg every month - who is, of course, already quite rich/fat? You think it's better that Bill's family starves so that Eisenberg can get even richer?

CheshireKitty said...

This is the error in the reasoning - it seems that the family would have more money if the son worked. But that money would then disappear into the bottomless maw of the rent. The family would not necessarily be better off if the son worked. I've explained why in one of my prior comments today.


Bill is complaining about the building in general. He sees that his situation has him trapped although his LAP neighbors continue to enjoy low rents no matter how much they earn. I have said for a few years that there is a problem with the exit agreement in that Sec 8 tenants who are original tenants as much as the LAP tenants, are not as protected as the LAP tenants. LAP tenants will never be exposed to market rate rents - thus they are protected as long as they live basically. Sec 8 tenants can also continue to enjoy reasonable rents of 1/3 of their income. The problem sets in when they or their family members become caught in the rent trap, the inability of the kids to find reasonable housing. My suggestion to Bill: Point out the discrepancy to the elected officials/RIOC. At the same time, the kids can place themselves on waiting lists for available affordable housing in NYC if they wish to move out.

OldRossie said...

With you 100%.

OldRossie said...

MOVE. Market rate = others will pay it. None of your other personal factors matter to anyone. Stop acting like he's owed anything. we don't own these places. If my rent goes beyond what I can afford, I move to a cheaper place. such is life.


There's no shock factor in his income vs take-home - anyone employed knows that, and I know my take-home is lower because of people like him.


And by the way, Median NYC household income is $51 k (census bureau 2007-2010). Bill was doing better than average - ABSOLUTELY no reason I should be paying his rent with my taxes.

OldRossie said...

that's amazing. You're solution is to perpetuate the problem. I have a different suggestion: teach your kids the value of education and hard work, so that they may move up in life, and not rely on government subsidies. Their success should far outweigh the impact to your rent.

CheshireKitty said...

Wow, what glaring selfishness in your comments. *You* should MOVE to Texas, or maybe Alaska - the home of the real conservatives like the *brilliant* *LOSER* Sarah Palin or the even more brilliant *LOSER* Rick Perry!


What are you doing in NYC, Rossie? You belong in a low-tax State that contains mostly conservative yahoos like yourself. YOU get going, not me, my man! I was born in the ghetto in NYC - and I get to stay! You can scoot back to whatever little old 'burg you came from - the Jipipy that spawned you.


NYC is 5:1 Democrat registration. And that's not counting the ones that can't vote - the immigrants. Do you know how poor immigrants of all races slant, Rossie! Quite liberal. That's why your arguments will not make a bit of a difference today or in November. You have your money, yes, but you don't have the numbers...!

OldRossie said...

Jipipy? Is that a word?


Maybe you're right. You should get to stay in the ghetto. So long as the building owners allow you to, that is...

CheshireKitty said...

Hey, maybe the two of you should get together and have a party at the local bier-haus, talk about the "good old days" under Adolf in the "old country"..!


If it were up to you, we'd all be serfs happy to labor 40 hr a week earning minimum, only to fork it over to the landlord who is charging inflated rents. But, hey, that's capitalism, that's the free market - there should be no "subsidies" for anyone who can work, even if the only work they can qualify for is "McJobs".


Otherwise, if it were up to you, it's off to the gas chambers with them! Off with their heads! Anybody who doesn't earn 100K+ - let them just die! What a neo-fascist you are Rossie.


Luckily, you'll get the message loud and clear tonight - the political message of what New Yorkers think of gentrification, high rents, low wages, and the re-enslavement of the working class. Luckily, that is, for the 99%....

OldRossie said...

Off with her head Frank!
What nonsense.

CheshireKitty said...

You never heard of Jipipy?

That's the generic term for anywhere not in the metro area.. the term for where most of the yuppies came from.. before of course, they become New Yorkers..

No - I've written before that I do not receive Sec 8 benefits and I am not in Eastwood. I live in Northtown - perhaps that can be considered the "ghetto" but if that's the case, then Frank is also a ghetto-dweller since he also lives in Northtown.

Oh, and Rossie, the "ghetto" is all around you -- there are millions in the "ghetto" if you feel Sec 8 means the ghetto, and they aren't all in public housing projects. How does that make you feel? Like the blind man, the paralyzed man, the man unable to find work - they're all robbing you? I suggest you crack open the Good Book to see what JC, the biggest socialist of them all, had to say about the meek inheriting the earth, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc etc. It seems that He didn't have too much sympathy with the rich and powerful - and unfortunately, just as today with so many activists, it cost him his life.

Does anyone wonder why Bloomberg has clamped down so hard on the poor minority youth with stop and frisk? Bloomberg's policies are aimed at making NY "safe" for people like you Rossie, the gentrifiers, those that will spend 1,120 on a stroller!

Now, stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional. But that doesn't stop Bloomberg. He's going to take his case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary - continue to chip away at our constitutional rights. Cause that's what fascism and people like you who hate the poor are all about: Re-enslavement of the working class, so the rich can continue to enjoy profits, not have to pay such high taxes, and earn as much as they want - in rents, interest income, and so forth. Doesn't matter if everyone around them is struggling, as long as they get to flaunt their wealth with the 1,120 stroller in safety and security, that's the important thing!

CheshireKitty said...

Hey, you said it; I fully expected you to say it: Advocates for the poor are always threatened by the rich when the rich see their profits/interests threatened. This is the way it has always been since time immemorial.


Unfortunately for you, the ballot box will reveal the will of the people insofar as income inequality in NY is concerned.


NYC represents perhaps the epitome of income inequality in the US and it is not surprising that voters favor a candidate that is advocating a new rich tax.


If the candidate that everyone is expecting to win, does win, and the rich tax is enacted next year, then the 99% will have the last laugh, Rossie, not you. Cause a new tax on the rich - that's definitely not nonsense!

billblass said...

Yea your right now get me a lap apartment

CheshireKitty said...

C'mon - it's easy for you to say that. You come from a middle-class (or perhaps better) background, with all sorts of enrichment and exposure to other middle-class people. It's those social intangibles that make the difference, Rossie: We will not have true equality until there is complete integration of neighborhoods, not just schools and businesses and public accommodations - social integration, meaning complete neighborhood integration, so that children of poor families are socializing with children of rich families. You must realize that this does not exist today despite numerous law suits mandating the construction of projects in the upper class areas.


This social integration, of course, will never happen: The housing market guarantees it.


As long as prices are set prohibitively high - there will always be people like you coming along and saying, MOVE to the poor neighborhood, poor man! Leave the RICH neighborhood for me, and rich people like me! Then the schools in my district will be correspondingly RICHER my kids will grow up with more ADVANTAGES and will get the good-paying jobs; your kids will continue to suffer in POOR neighborhoods - I will make sure my kinds never have anything to do with your kids because you can't afford to live in my part of town! This Rossie is the socio-economic model YOU espouse: Those with the socio-economic advantages effectively exclude the disadvantaged. People like you stay in their upper-class gentrified enclaves. The poor - they continue to rot in the ghetto, in projects our wonderful Mayor Bloomberg refuses to maintain, instead lavishing land give-aways and money on his developer friends. And to further harass the poor, Bloomberg advocates finger-printing all project dwellers! Luckily for the poor folks, that initiative was struck down - just as stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional...

CheshireKitty said...

Median household income may be 51K, but that doesn't mean many of those making 51K aren't receiving a Sec 8 voucher.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Rossie. You are paying Grenadier a ridiculous amount for a tiny apt in MP - and feel you're not exploited. Well, then, you are a fool.


You want someone making 51K to pay 3.4K per mo in rent?! When the average for a 3 BR is about 3+K/mo? Are you kidding me? Do the math Rossie. It don't add up! Blass needs a 3 BR - 3BRs are very expensive. They cannot be rented on 51K pay, or even 67K. Capisce?

CheshireKitty said...

An article on how the ultra-rich 1% class exclude themselves from the 99% - even at universities that are aiming to "level the playing field": http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/education/harvard-business-students-see-class-as-divisive-an-issue-as-gender.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

billblass said...

Well frank if i am working at a job that offers overtime pay but I never work overtime see this is called keeping my income low. Now frank take one guess why I am forced to do this

billblass said...

Frank after reading what you said I think you have lost your mine

billblass said...

YoU want to get more upset 8 years ago this friend of mine in eastwood his income was 79k And he was put into sec 8

billblass said...

Frank I read this more than 30 times And I keep stop lol. Lol lol its a joke right

CheshireKitty said...

Bill - This is the portion that makes no sense/laughable: "....add another (say) $200/mo. At that point, although he would be paying market rent, he is actually making more money after his market rate rent is paid." ROTFLMAO. Priceless..!

CheshireKitty said...

How can 200 more/mo pay for the entire remaining market rate rent - between 1-2K mo/ and you still are "...making more money after his market rate rent is paid." Billblass, you're absolutely right! This is one of the most funny comments that's ever been posted on this blog!!

OldRossie said...

Why do you keep concerning yourself with the mayoral election? What exactly do you think will improve for you?


Let me try to explain this bluntly: those that may be subject to an additional tax wont be concerned about an additional 50 or 100 basis points - they're loosing quite a bit already, it's just fuzzy math. People with young kids (ahem) will be able to go back to work with less interruption because, eventually, that money will be used for universal pre-kindergarten. You, on the other hand, will remain in your bitter little non-contributory world. The only impact to you might be that your building owners are pocketing a little less because their tax money is paying for my kids school so they'll squeeze you! Or Bill. Or anyone else not in the circle of wealth re-distribution you seem interested in. Win win!

Frank Farance said...

CK, you have a problem not reading my posts clearly. The point is: the McJobs (which are the lowest paying) plus another $200/mo would earn more than the market rate rent. But I was wrong because I was using older numbers, the 2012 numbers are $78,850, which means billblass is paying $1971 towards his rent, and $1429 is the subsidy, which is $17,148 annually ... even easier to make that with McJobs, so billblass probably wouldn't have to work any extra. However, if billblass did work overtime (assuming his son is working at McJobs or better) then he'd get to keep it all rather than it going towards rent, i.e., no more of 30% of his incremental income taken away. And his household would actually have more cash available than if he stayed on Sec8 and his son didn't work.

OldRossie said...

Awesome statement - you hit all of your regular points: (1) inaccurately depict me, (2) blame me for all of your problems, (3) blame gentrification, (4) blame Bloomberg, and (5) make some random remark about stop and frisk... well done!

Frank Farance said...

OldRossie, the 95% AMI for 4 persons in New York City in 2012 is $78,850, i.e., the Section 8 enhanced voucher limit. The $73K number I had been using was an older number, I stand corrected. To find the AMI numbers, go HUD at "http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/il/il12/IncomeLimits_Section8.pdf" and go to PDF page 150. You'll see the New York, NY 4-person 30% median income limit is $24,900. So take that number, divide by 30, and multiply by 95 to get $78,850, which is the 95% AMI limit for Section 8 enhanced vouchers for 4 persons.

KTG said...

If NYC is so overwhelmingly liberal as you claim where are all of the other voices on this big crying out in support. Bill only agrees with you on one point that he is entitled to low rent.


Also last 2 mayors weren't Democrats? Prior two democrats mayors brought this city to its knees, and 3 top borough leaders are openly corrupt. So don't be surprised Joe Lhota pulls ahead.


BTW - I am a lifelong New Yorker, I actually doubt you are, either way I stay because its right job market for me but would love some of tax and social polices from Texas.

Frank Farance said...

billblass, you keep you income low and tell us that Sec8 is what keeps you from working, which is just bait for people feel outrage and, thus, we're supposed to be sympathetic about your points about LAP.


Unfortunately, there have been many inconsistencies in your statements, and it seems clear that you had the option for LAP (as CK pointed out, you couldn't find another $300 of income to get into LAP?), and you fully understood the consequences, but in your short-sightedness (you didn't realize that your child would grow up and look to work?), you took the Sec8 benefits which provided lower rents at the time and, possibly, you felt you could manipulate your income under Section 8 limits.


Now your son wants to work (a reasonable step in maturity), and you're worried that you'll lose your benefits for Sec8. And if you son moves out, you'll probably lose your Sec8 benefits, too. So you advocate for your son to not work to keep the Sec8 benefits, you're caught in a bind. Meanwhile, it is possible that your son could work and even working at a McJobs would pay enough money to the household to have the same (or more) available cash after taxes and rent: approx $3100/mo available cash working at $78,850 and paying Sec8 rent; and approx $3100/mo available cash working at $78,850 and the son working at $19K and paying market rate rent.



Here's the reality for you:
- you made a bad decision for your family a couple years ago that had a little benefit in the short term, but was bad in the long-term
- now, your exiting Sec8 is inevitable, either you son will want to work, or you will top out when your son leaves (because income limits are reduced for a 3-person household)

- there is no going to LAP, as they say: That Ship Has Sailed


So what should you do? In my opinion, think first about your son: think about what kind of career and life he wants, and think about how deferring jobs/work is a long-term negative against him. Then think about yourself and your family: no one is mandating you work more, but you could for your own effort, your own financial stability, and (heck) if the work is available, you should not be Leaving The Money On The Table. Sure, you'll grow out of Sec8 housing, but that is OK, which will really help you long-term. Do you want to retire with more money or less?


And do you want to stunt your son's personal and career growth by insisting that he doesn't work?

OldRossie said...

Agreed KTG. Don't take CheshierKitty too seriously - she makes a lot of unsupported claims (see Euro countries 5:1 executive salary caps. I don't even know if that's right or wrong, but she doesn't seem to either). You seem like an educated person - we can't take seriously someone that assumes US gov't spending will be forever supported by China. I do enjoy the debate though.

OldRossie said...

Well said. I think that advice should apply to many - beyond Bill.

billblass said...

Frank I will not talk about this any longer you make up lies

OldRossie said...

Are we talking facts? Which European country has the 5:1 executive comp limit you mentioned?

CheshireKitty said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/03/04/with-help-from-novartis-switzerland-acts-to-fix-c-suite-ripoffs/

CheshireKitty said...

Here, the SEC is considering a similar rule. http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/09/news/economy/ceo-pay-rule/index.html

The AFL-CIO supports the movement to reveal exec pay:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/15/news/economy/ceo-pay-worker/index.html although Trumka himself makes about 300K/yr.

Here, you can see that some businesses do not pay more than 5 x the workers' salary, such as the Bank of S. Carolina: http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-You/CEO-to-Worker-Pay-Gap-in-the-United-States

Here is a good article for "nerds" which if you avoid the mind-numbing charts, is interesting nonetheless. A good quote from the article:
"From 1978 to 2012, CEO compensation measured with options realized increased about 875 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 5.4 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period." and regarding the ratio "Measured with options granted, CEOs earned 18.3 times more than typical workers in 1965 and 26.5 times more in 1978; the ratio grew to 136.8-to-1 in 1995 and peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000. In 2012, CEO pay was 202.3 times more than typical worker pay, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s." http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-2012-extraordinarily-high/

OldRossie said...

So I think what we've discovered is that you're happy to pass things off as facts, that are incorrect. This calls into question everything you try to pass off as fact. All we're left with then is your opinions. I guess we'll have to settle with those.

CheshireKitty said...

In Switzerland, in March 2013, ~70% of voters approved an initiative that obliges the Legislature to enact a law within a year controlling rip-off executive pay. (A similar initiative also passed in Germany 1 month later.) Here is the link to the Wiki article on the new regulations that the gov has no choice but to enact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendum_%22against_corporate_Rip-offs%22_of_2013

As far as countries that mandate a 5:1 ratio, it is not so much mandating this ratio as social strictures not allowing excessive pay, such as in Japan.

Here in the US, next month, the SEC is going to require that public companies "...require public companies to report how much their employees are earning compared with the CEO." http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/08/27/how-wide-is-your-wage-gap-new-rule-would-reveal-ceo-pay-vs-employee-pay/

I conflated Japan (which culturally does not reward exec with excessive compensation as it is a more collectivistic society) with Switzerland (which just passed the above initiative mandating the gov pass a law within a year controlling rip-off executive pay) in my comment - but the underlying idea is correct: Society, one way or another, needs to rein in the obscene earnings of the 1%. This is true here, in Europe, and anywhere there is a pay ratio > 5:1. Initiatives leading to the eventual control of rip-off executive pay have been passed, in Germany and Switzerland. Here in the US, next month, the SEC has mandated the disclosure by public corporations, as I said above of "...how much their employees are earning compared with the CEO." This will lead to further reforms/investor uprisings/Board member sackings etc - anything that is needed to claw back the excess compensation from the 1%.

billblass said...

It was not up to me if i get lap or sec 8 .it went by your gross income on you 1040 tax for a person filed with the irs for that year ok see frank lies

CheshireKitty said...

A blog comment is supposed to be the equivalent of a chat, Rossie. Do you have your tablet in front of you when you are chatting with someone? I hope not, since that would be socially incorrect and insulting. You are expected to marshal information even facts to some extent when conversing. If I were to write a researched article, then that would be different than expressing opinions just as we all do on the blog. Occasionally we cite articles in our comments, but not always, just as in real life, we wouldn't refer our interlocutors to articles (maybe a real nerd might however). We do speak in terms of overall trends. The trend I was referring to is correct - that of the movement to cap exec pay, or at least have it disclosed so that the investors can have a say.


As far as a mandated 5:1 ratio, that may be the case in some countries - or it may be the case socially (i.e. social norms do not permit a higher ratio).


So, nothing was "passed off" as a fact - any more or less than anything anybody says here is factual. Do I go around to verify what you say? Or what Frank says? There is always a certain level of acceptance of what people say in comments - you either accept it or are skeptical of it. Most folks are skeptical of what they read in the paper, since "facts" or "findings" can be written up to slant a certain way etc., and most people understand this.


Your problem Rossie is that you cannot accept the fact that there is wide-spread world-wide revulsion at income inequality. This has lead to movements or initiatives to limit executive pay - i.e. the pay of the 1%. Eventually, in accordance with the wish to limit the pay of the 1%, there will be ratios enacted into law that will limit the pay of the highest-paid executive to perhaps 5:1 in comparison with the lowest paid employee. Or, the same movement will play out within investors' movements, those that are outraged at the disconnect between performance and pay.


Either way, it is time to set a limit on executive pay - and as such, laws, if they are not already on the books in Germany and Switzerland, will within a year, be enacted that will directly lead to this result.

OldRossie said...

You combined Japanese cultural practices, and Switzerland's proxy voter legislation and turned it into facts about European executive pay mandates of specifically 5:1? That's nowhere NEAR a fact. Does explain how you internally justify a lot of this nonsense though...

CheshireKitty said...

All he is talking about is that you may have known the limit ahead of time and not taken the overtime in order to make it into Sec 8. How long before the Church meeting did you know about Sec 8 income limits? Do you remember when the Sec 8 program was announced - how much time there was to find out about it ahead of signing up that day in Church?

Frank Farance said...

billblass, you could have received a $300 gift, which is included in Sec8 income, but not included in 1040 income. You just trying to put up a plausible lie, you're caught.

CheshireKitty said...

It represents a trend nonetheless - the reaction of the ordinary people and even investors to excessive exec pay following the recession, resulting hard times, austerity, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if eventually an actual ratio such as 5:1 is mandated - that would be the expected the inevitable result of the legislative initiative, and even the investor movement.

OldRossie said...

Great! So we're clear then: your supporting information will always be pulled out of your rear end. If there's ever a doubt in the future, we can refer to your "..today that have mandated..." evolving into "Eventually..."


And yes, before I introduce factual circumstances to support my opinion, I take the time to research it. And I'm not always right (see previous discussion where Frank corrected my net income comments). I accept when I'm wrong - I don't send a handful of articles as if I was correct, then start my concession with "you know what your problem is?"


By the way, I know what my problem is. Its you. Not Bill, Frank, or otherwise. Just you. Isn't that obvious?

CheshireKitty said...

Let us remember that the building exited as of 31 Oct 2005. Bill filed his 2004 taxes by 15 April 2005, and his 2004 1040 was mailed to him shortly after 1 January 2005. There is no way Bill could change the 1040 retroactively. What Bill could have done was look into the Sec 8 guidelines and then adjust his income accordingly, legally, depending on when the Sec 8 sign up session in the Church occurred.


If the session occurred in 2006, and Bill knew the Sec 8 guidelines at least as far back as 30 Oct 2005, he still had 2 months to "lower" or "control" his income to meet the guidelines by the time his 1040 was issued in January 2006.

CheshireKitty said...

But I've explained that (A) A blog comment is not the equivalent of a researched article (B) There is a worldwide trend that I was correct about regarding the excessive compensation of the 1%.


I must say that your attitude is not likely to earn you my respect. I have just pointed out that those who comment are in fact chatting - commenting is merely a form of chatting.


Even with articles that may appear in the paper or on network news, they are taking with a grain of salt by most people. Do you believe everything you read in the paper as if it were "fact"? I hope not.


I don't hold you to absolute truth in your comments, why should you hold me to this impossible to attain standard?


Of course I've accepted that I'm not always absolutely correct. You may have noticed I likened you and Frank to a couple of Nazis the other day - enjoying a brew at a beer-hall and reminiscing about the "olden days" in the "old country" etc. Of course I don't believe you and Frank actually do this; this was just put in for emphasis - as one might call a very rich person a fat cat etc. We can insert rhetorical devices or even poetic metaphors, analogies, similes etc. in our discussions, which are not taken literally, or factually.


Rossie: I have no idea what your problem is and nor do I care. You seem to enjoy bashing Bill - sometimes I too disagree with Bill/Joe. You are reflexively indignant about your taxes, and the sums going to the social safety net. You sound in general like a conservative at times. Can you blame me for confronting you and defending Bill? Even worldwide, countries, even investors, are rising up in revulsion against the 1% - not that I'm characterizing you as a 1%-er. I'm simply pointing out that glaring income inequality strikes most people worldwide as unfair, and if one way of correcting that inequality is by mandating a ratio of exec compensation in comparison with that of the lowest-paid worker in a publicly traded corporation, then it follows that, just as similar initiatives have already been voted in by landslides in Switzerland and Germany, laws to mandate such a ratio will inevitably be enacted if they are not already on the books. The system of democracy can and should regulate the pay of the 1%.

OldRossie said...

You had me. I was so ready to cave. Right up until that last bit. "The system of democracy can and should regulate the pay of the 1%." The really strange thing is that's inarguable in the literal translation of democracy as a whole (I think it's because democracy is a gov't system, not a social system), but completely contradictory to the practice of a free democracy (as I understand it). Only someone NOT in a class/group would single out that group for additional scrutiny. To say that anyone should be any more "regulated" than any other for any reason... wrong! by every measure.


And that's why you bother me so! You think that one person has more of a right to something than another person. and you call ME a Nazi! I don't care what Bill's situation is - I dig at him, he digs at me, sometimes we agree. But you! You don't quit! Read every one of my comments and you'll find my philosophy is a man earns what he eats, and when he falls on hard times - we should all be willing to help. But you! You want to penalize people for earning, and Gov't subsidies for all!
If you did do some research, I think you'll surprise yourself. Switzerland didn't cap exec pay, they made it up to the shareholders. So ask yourself: who are the shareholders? Before you attack anyone with a pot to p___ in, do a little research. It'd make the blog comments a little more entertaining - maybe even educational... (ie, why I find Frank and KTG interesting).

CheshireKitty said...

Yet the gov regulates minimum pay, why shouldn't it regulate maximum pay?


I never said someone has more of a right to something than someone else. I just defend Bill - he was in fact complaining about the income restrictions within the Sec 8 program.


If Bill exits Sec 8, then he has to find a comparable apt he can afford. How easy/likely is that?


The apt he is in was under M-L originally - he qualified for that because of his low to moderate income. So Bill could look into other M-L projects, or even, if his income is low enough, housing projects.


So now you're telling Bill to MOVE - which you have already said many times. How would you like it if your landlord doubled your rent? You would just meekly accept it and MOVE?


You say "...a man earns what he eats..." Well, I have a similar philosophy based on the old Hasidic saying: No work no bread. Notice, in this saying, bread depends on work. If there is no work available, the person may not eat. You are assuming there is always work - i.e. a good paying job - available for everyone. That, as we know, is not always the case. Also, the cost of living can exceed the pay of jobs readily available. The dislocations or disconnect of pay vs costs = the need for the social safety network, to make up for the difference.


As far as imposing penalties on earning, what are taxes if not exactly that? In fact, just consider the incredible array of taxes on almost everything you can think of in life: Our system of services, gov, the military, depends on extracting tax revenue from so many different activities,revenue streams, income, etc. Our complex society has continually evolved in this direction since the dawn of our democracy since it was accepted by all Americans that the gov had to run on some sort of revenue stream.


Most people welcome the system of social benefits even if politically they are conservative. SS is known as the 3rd rail of politics for a reason: It is untouchable by politicians of the left and the right since it is so popular.


Yes - for the shareholders to decide in that context, that of the initiative/law: That is democracy, too. The shareholders get to vote and decide. The democracy of Switzerland voted on the initiative that will then let the shareholders democratically decide. One share = one vote, if I'm not mistaken. I don't have a problem with this shareholder uprising against excessive exec pay and it represents another example of democracy in action, the demos (people) rising up against the 1%!

Frank Farance said...

CK, you have the facts wrong and you didn't carefully read my post. Jobs at McDonalds are $7.35-9.00/hr, other McJobs (Staples stocking, Best Buy stocking/cashier, etc.) are about $9-11/hr ($11/hr * 40 * 52 is about $23K annually, I used $19K as an estimate). McJobs is just a general name for low-end jobs, you know that already.



I used the example of McJobs only to indicate the low end of wages to show that even with McJobs, billblass and his son would be better off with more household cash. I didn't not suggest that billblass's son should get that kind of job, you read too much into it.


As to the Meaningless of Flipping Burgers, work is work (it generates income), and we're lucky if we get a job we like, but that isn't always the case. Having worked as a dishwasher myself to help pay for college, I was very happy to have the job, even though it was yucky, smelly, messy, and low wages. I don't recall thinking about the Meaningless of Dirty Dishes, I was thinking: gee this job makes money (no matter how small), I felt on top of the world having a job, and I thought: "I can have anything I want, I just have to work for it" and it was a liberating feeling.

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, it is good having any sort of job, even a McJob, for the wages; if billblass' son income was not figured into household income and he got to keep the wages, then he should certainly take even a low-end job. Yet, his take-home may just cover the amount of the voucher with very little left to show after that is paid.


You can say: Well, the family still will have 2/3 of the dad's income since the son's pay will make up the voucher amount. Does the son's labor amount to a net gain or loss for the family if they could get the same money by not working?


Obviously, if the son worked to make up the voucher amount, then the dad could take the overtime opportunities and make even more money - maybe other family members could work as well. And even if the family eventually fell on hard times, the voucher could be reactivated; the question would then be would UA allow the family to start using the voucher again after not having used it.


In the above scenario, the family could eventually have more money, but in the process, accept not renting an affordable apt. Billblass seems philosophically opposed to the huge rent increases UA put through on building exit - but that is a reality. His only choice now is to either "stay poor" and keep the voucher, or buy into the market rate rent structure, earn more money (or the kids could earn money) and pay the higher rent. Meanwhile, if he really can't stomach the family paying double all at once for the same space if he exits Sec 8, then he can put himself on the waiting list for affordable apts elsewhere. There are even some affordable apts in Southtown; otherwise, there are ~100 M-L developments in NYC that he could try applying to, some even have units immediately available (although they may not be as nice as RL).


There should be a new M-L program. RL tenants should be given the option to enter the LAP upon exiting Sec 8. But all that is not the case currently. Bill can try to get the exit agreement changed, or support legislative initiatives for a new M-L program. For the time being, his only choices are to keep his income low and stay on Sec 8, or emerge from Sec 8, pay the market rate rent, and even possibly eventually earn more money.

OldRossie said...

We're never going to agree, because what I earn: I want to keep, and you want to take. It seems you're interested in the discussion but don't want to listen (and I'm trying to keep it brief - though no one else reading prob thinks so). Ineffectual political nonsense - that's how I'd characterize the Euro legislation (already said that). SS has been touched, is being touched, and will be a target until it's gone. I said I wont get it no matter what I pay in - and you find it necessary to describe that I DO pay in? The fact that your "lock-box" is likely gone is in fact an assertion I'm not sure I buy, but no one, including Obama, is arguing it. SS DEFENDERS, the AARP itself, admits it'll be gone when I retire.

You said " I definitely believe there should be a way to cap earnings of the 1%". Targeting! it doesn't matter what % you use! That's an insane comment - You're going after anyone that is willing to work hard. Thieves are everywhere - board rooms, ghettos, the halls of MP, as it turns out. You want to pick out a group and penalize ANYONE in it, and if I had to bet it's simply because you can get more out of them than anyone else. I have no idea what this site is, just a random list of people I found on google. Why should ANY of these people be capped in any way?

http://www.21for21.com/the-millionaires/

KTG said...

The problem you have is that you refuse to listen to other peoples point of view. There is nothing wrong with a safety net but aid provide in any duration over a few years is not a safety net.


The long term dependency is never addressed by people like you, you just take it as norms of social inequity. Your approach addresses symptoms never the cause. Other people feel that making people responsible for themselves with a limited amount of assistance is probably a better long term approach to addressing generational poverty.


Your taxation policy also is flawed because it does recognizes mobility of middle and upper middle class. Cities like Philadelphia, Hartford, Detroit over taxed and under serviced middle class and lost their tax base. Also white collar employment (not just Wall Street), is more portable than ever they can go to another market. If we follow your attitude where would the money come from then. Who would buy bonds or loan money to a state with diminish tax revenues?


Also I love your assumption that everyone will rally around Deblasio probably won't happen I would bet Lhota pulls ahead. Also Cuomo already said he would not support Deblasio taxation plans which require state approval and he considers unrealistic.

OldRossie said...

That's a good point - I'm not familiar with how city tax rules are established, but if state approval is required you have to first look to see who has a say and second assume it will take some time to effect... personally, I'm in favor of this proposal - increased tax on upper income to pay for pre-K, regardless if I get hit with the tax or if I take advantage of the school - my only concern is what the money is ACTUALLY used for...
I also agree that she refuses to listen, but I believe she moves from point to point and exaggerates to avoid concession. I'm guilty of constantly getting sucked into a pointless discussion, but as you see she makes direct attacks, so it's hard not to respond (and do so in the same fashion)...

OldRossie said...

KTG is right that you refuse to listen. You're also a hypocrite, as you call people things like "nazis" then proceed to explain why groups of people should be targeted for penalty. Your view is senseless - capping high income is not only pointless but has no positive impact and is virtually impossible. You don't even have the sense to differentiate executive comp at public companies vs privately earned income. You only know that they have and you want. Purely operating from the id.


Now this is the most important point of all: no one cares. You took yourself out of the race already. You don't participate in this society. You can talk about how much of my money you want until your blue in the face. I can earn, chose where I live, vote contribute to what I want... I will dictate how much of my money you get! If you're LUCKY I live in NY permanently. You may not like me, but leaches like you NEED me. You think that's unfair? get a job.


Bill? he doesn't say much, seems to have trouble typing, maybe he needs some help. He asked what I would do in his situation - move. But you? I WANT you to stay here. In a few years I want to read on this blog how horrible the construction is, and it's not fair that the yuppies get the build a college on YOUR island. I want to read how you cant afford the new Gristedes prices, and a metro card is too expensive. I want to read you complaining about all of the hipsters hanging around starbucks drinking coffee you cant afford. This island is improving - but I want you to stay just the way you are.

CheshireKitty said...

We'll see how the election works out KTG. Don't bet on Lhota getting a lotta votes though, not with the anti-Bloomberg, anti-gentrification mood of the electorate this time around. All Lhota needs is the Bloomberg endorsement - a political kiss of death. Lhota's not in inspiring speaker for one thing, and no-one wants another Bloomberg-clone, that's why Quinn was handily defeated.


As far as white or white collar flight is concerned: That's right, it's the racism of people like you that led to the crisis of the urban centers 50 years ago or so. At least you admit it. Yet, today, we have an African-American President, and a Mayor-to-be with a wonderful "rainbow" family - and nobody is fleeing the US or NYC because of that. Those that were previously scorned have made huge advances - at your expense under affirmative action and many other programs that favor minorities, and rightly so. You paid for their progress as much as you stifled their progress for the first 300 years of the country's existence; as slow and as painful as progress was there was progress, but there is still a long way to go.


Did I ever say long-term dependency is a good thing? It's as bad as the long-term rip-offs of corporate state that doesn't pay workers enough at McJobs, and charges too much for rent, and rewards executives too richly. Fifty years from now, just as racial walls have fallen in the past 50 years, so will economic walls. There will be "punitive" taxes on the 1% - as they deserve. They will be singled out - and there will be no-where for them to run, since the taxes will follow them wherever they go.


NYC is Cuomo's base (duh). If the people want the rich tax, he will support it. Whether it passes the Legislature is another question - there are enough racists in Long Island and upstate to see that it doesn't. Then Cuomo can just point the finger of blame at conservative upstaters, racists like you KTG, and say he was all for the tax, it was just the conservatives who killed it.

CheshireKitty said...

Rossie, you really should move back to Jipipy or whatever little Midwesern burg you came from. If taxing the 1% is singling a group out, then all indexation is the same thing, since it assigns earners to categories of taxation. The point of progressive taxation is to extract more from the wealthier, less from those who earn less. Thus, income inequalities are corrected. But you don't want to see that - as you say, you want to keep what you earn. Fine, then you won't have highways on which to drive your Mercedes. Maybe you should go live in a cave in a backward conservative state like Alabama - not have to pay any tax, just live off possum meat and foraging! Haha..


No - you do not dictate how much money we will extract from you in taxes. That is decided by a system of government that is responsive to the masses - and the masses are the 99%. If high taxes on the rich are in order, as DeBlasio has recommended in NYC, then the masses will see to it that high taxes on the rich are put through... We do have a democratic form of gov, and the vast majority of the demos - the people - aren't rich! Thus, you will get taxed as you should be, at a rate that is fair; the vast majority of the people will continue paying moderate, affordable, taxes.


Bill is trapped by a program that you support with your tax dollars, a program that is designed to enrich an already rich landlord, who is in a position to charge exorbitant rents. You want to take money and give it to a landlord, that's your business - basically that's what Sec 8 does: Supports rich landlord in style with your tax dollars. But because you are wedded to the notion of "I can earn what I want" and "I can set the rent as I please" and "I can pay you as little as I want" well, you now get to foot the bill for Mr. Landlord's extravagant rents!


I will stay here - why should I not? What makes you think I have no money anyway? I have no problem with Cornell coming to RI - what makes you think I oppose Cornell? It's you that will probably be complaining about Cornell, just as you are suffering in your tiny overpriced apt with the facade renovation that is dragging on an on, right? No - I prefer to shop at Costco since the price structure there makes a lot more sense. I own a car, and have a nice retirement account too. I mean, many of "us" the so-called poor, aren't really that poor. Do you have a car? And I can go to Starbucks anytime I want, if I cared to give myself a heart attack with a caffeine overload.


At this point, though, the important thing is for people like you to get the message to flee NYC because of the impending "targeted" tax on those making 500K and up a year. Leaving rather than refusing to pay a tax that will pay for universal pre-K. I mean, how mean is that? How Nazi-like is that? But that is exactly your position: You would rather see underprivileged children not have pre-K programs rather than pay a dime more in tax. You are inhumane, you do not know how to live in a collectivistic society wherein those with more must give more etc, for the good of all. You are selfish, your thinking is all about me, me, me.. For you, the best "solution" is a cave - in Alaska, Alabama, or some other conservative state..

CheshireKitty said...

So if it's pointless why do you continue? It can't be that pointless otherwise you wouldn't reply. Now you admit you would be happy to pay the tax - at least to that extent you are human.


DeBlasio is popular because Bloomberg and his policies are so unpopular. It's nice to have a cleaned up city, less chaos, more construction etc. but the aim of urban redevelopment isn't to make it a city "safe" for the rich, with the poor kicked to curb.


That's why RI was deliberately designed to include those of all income layers - it's a planned mixed income community.


There will always be poor people on RI - in fact, there's a ratio that must be followed set forth in the GDP outlining exactly how many poor people must be included in housing on the island. Moderate income people make neighborhoods vibrant.


The problem is the GDP wasn't vigorously applied under Pataki, since he was a tool of the developers. It was weakened, resulting in the later developments including affordable apts according to the the City's 80/20 ratio instead of the ratio contained in the GDP (State-mandated). That is why it's so important that 7, 8, 9 be set aside for poor and moderate-income residents.


A new administration in City Hall that will show the developers the door should mean the brakes are put on gentrification in NYC. At least that is the hope. We may see pressure brought to bear to ensure that 7 is in fact developed for poor to moderate-income renters, instead of a luxury rental. Election Day is less than 2 months away - so the final outcome of the struggle between the rich 1% (Lhota/any Bloomberg-clone) and the rest of us (99%) should be clear on that day. All I can say is: Get ready for a huge new influx of poor people not only on RI, but throughout NYC, as gentrification is brought under control. That may lead to lower rents - and the trend will just build on itself until neighborhoods again are real neighborhoods instead of enclaves of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich - which has led to the economic apartheid you see throughout the City today.

OldRossie said...

You truly don't know what you're talking about. First, 46% of NY are happy with bloomberg, 36% like de blasio. Second - you're now calling KTG a racist? Have you run out of ways to make your point?

CheshireKitty said...

Yeah, you've got it all figured out. Isn't Dem reg 5:1 in NYC? Didn't we just have a Dem primary? How well did the chief Dem Bloomberg-clone, the lapdog of Bloomberg, the one who enabled the 3rd term travesty, the one who sold out St. Vincents, do? Third place! So purely on the basis of math, Lhota is finished politically.


KTG comes off as a racist - whether in his heart of hearts he's actually a racist is another question. We can only respond to what we hear. If someone comes off as a racist, then we'll say they must be a racist. Perhaps he can explain why he's not a racist.

CheshireKitty said...

So now you're calling wealth redistribution, which even Pres. Obama advocates in calling for increasing the taxes on the wealthy, loony! I suppose you feel Pres. Obama and the entire Dem caucus in Congress are lunatics?


Well, let me set the record straight: There is a plan to tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor. It's been in place for years, and you have been forking over your earnings at a much higher rate than those of moderate income. So, if you have agreed that this is only right - that the rich must pay a higher proportionate share of their income than those of more modest means - then that means you are a loony too.


You probably don't have a car do you - that's why you reacted so vehemently to my admitting I have a ride. You have to remain packed in the train, or get rained on if you ride a bike.. hohoho. Too bad, Old Rossie!

OldRossie said...

wait wait, this is fun, I'll do it your way... Oh you have a car? I suppose you think you're better than all of us! I think YOU should be taxed and paying my rent!


Give it up Kitty. You're making yourself look more childish than you actually are. What are you anyway, 64?

CheshireKitty said...

That's not at all what I'm saying, Rossie. Many of the folks you seem to resent, have lifestyles that are just as nice as yours. They may work but not earn as much as you. Of course they pay taxes, as do I.
I'm not making myself look childish. It's you who haven't given up your backward attitude toward the masses that looks foolish. You were the one that said: What I earn,I keep, or words to that effect. It's you who keeps heaping scorn on those that can't afford to own a car or drink coffee at Starbucks. You are the one stereotyping the poor - most of whom do own cars. Admit it: You don't own a car because you can't afford it.


Do I ask you to reveal your age? I suspect you are a reg Republicon - age about 45, from a "nice" "predominantly white" suburb in the Midwest. Whether I'm 104 or 44 years old - what difference does it make? If it were up to you, there would be no SS for the elderly, disabled, those unable to work and so forth. For the record I do not collect SS benefits of any sort.

CheshireKitty said...

For all those growling about the poor using food stamps, or receiving Sec 8 benefits, here's Robert Reich's words (of today) on the level of income inequality in the US:

My Berkeley colleague, professor Immanuel Saez, who has done the pioneering work on assessing inequality in the U.S., has just released his latest study, bringing his data up to 2012. His finding: The income share of the top 1 percent of earners in 2012 returned to the same level as before both the Great Recession and the Great Depression: over 22 percent. The study also shows that almost all the gains over the last 20 years have gone to the very top. Between 1993 and 2012, the real incomes of the top 1% grew 86.1%, while those of the bottom 99% grew 6.6% (the top 1% is defined as families with incomes above $394,000 in 2012). From 2009 to 2012, as the U.S. economy improved, incomes of the top 1% grew more than 31%, while the incomes of the 99% grew 0.4% - less than half a percentage point. Meanwhile, the typical worker saw almost no income gain at all. And we now have the lowest percentage of adults in the workforce than at any time in the last 35 years.

As I've argued, all this is not only savagely unfair but it's also bad for the economy. With so much of the nation's economic gains going to the top, the rest don't have the purchasing power to keep the economy going -- which explains why the recovery has been so anemic, and why it's also so fragile. This degree of inequality is also bad for our democracy: With so much income and wealth concentrated at the top, the rich have been able to entrench their wealth and privilege through laws that favor them and their businesses while putting ever-greater burdens on everyone else.

The question is: When do we reach a tipping point? When is inequality so wide that the vast majority of Americans refuse to take it any more? Is the upcoming mayoral race in New York -- centered as it has been on inequality, with the putative winner pledged to raise taxes on the City's wealthiest -- a sign of things to come?

KTG said...

First of all race was never mentioned economics nor was implied, we share different opinions plain and simple.


This is the second time you have accused posters of racism without provocation (in July you made a similar claim against Mark), its unacceptable and I am forwarding a note to site administrator encouraging him to suspend your account.

OldRossie said...

You've been completely wrong with everything about me except my age - there you're only about 13 years off...
Whats wrong with white neighborhoods? You're obviously a racist.

OldRossie said...

No one cares. wrong blog. Only complaining here is about abusers like you.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, the NYC certainly electorate cares about the effect of income inequality - since they elected a candidate that has promised to introduce a rich tax on folks like you. Didn't you try to soaring deny income inequality in the US Rossie? Well, why not read Reich's article - educate yourself, admit that the US, and NYC especially, is not in the midst of the worst income inequality since before both the Great Recession and the Great Depression!


But you don't care: In your own words: "I want to keep every penny I earn." I.e. we shouldn't have progressive taxes, like the rich tax on those making 500K and up a year in NYC, since it will take a sizable chunk of earnings of rich folks like you. You call this abuse? It's a tax plan Rossie - so all kids in NYC can have pre-K! A tax plan, get it?

CheshireKitty said...

Oh - so you're in your 30s, fine. A rabid conservative in his 30s. Great.


I don't have a problem with any sort of neighborhood although I do favor integration. It's you who has the problem with folks receiving Sec 8 benefits, you who has the problem with the thousands of your neighbors at 2-4 River Road and Eastwood, who qualify for Sec 8 apts and who may be predominantly African-American.


If low income coincides with minority, then you are the racist for constantly criticizing low income. We all know what that is "code" for, which is why you should head back to the wealthy Midwestern suburb you came from if you can't stand living alongside neighbors of all educational, social, racial, political, ethnic, and economic layers.

CheshireKitty said...

"....mobility of middle and upper middle class..." you mean, the racism of these classes that led to the hollowing out of cities like Phila. & Detroit. You are defending those racists that fled? If so you're a racist. The whole point of RI is that it's a multi-ethnic, mixed-income community, genius. It's not supposed to become a rich/white enclave. But you don't buy into that - you think anyone who is poor and on benefits, has to be lazy or a welfare cheat. That's not the case, and moreover, nationally, most of those on welfare are - white !



Get me suspended - that's fine. Get me suspended, when I've repeatedly been termed a racist for being pro-black. Did I call for the suspension of those who called me a racist? Nope. That's because I'm not a spineless namby-pamby like you. Plus you probably realize that I'm right, you're wrong - RI was conceived of as a mixed-income community. RI was founded on the principles of integration of classes, economic/social layers, and races. You just can't stomach that some of your neighbors will always be working class people, they will always fight for a rich tax, they will always be striking for higher wages, and yes, one day, maybe soon, they will be in a position to impose that tax, roll back the depredations of the developers, etc etc. It's called democracy - rule of the demos, the people, most of whom in NYC aren't necessarily rich or white.


Mark and his anti-Semitic remarks? But, how about my defending the Korean-American hardware store owner before that. I was branded a racist (I guess a pro-Asian racist in that instance). I can't possibly be anti-white since I am white, but I am pro minority rights, be they the rights of Jews, who, in fact, remain still in this day and age unfortunately targets of prejudice worldwide, the rights of immigrants including Korean-Americans, the rights of ethnic/racial minorities since they are always still getting picked on and discriminated against, the rights of LGBTs, the rights of workers to strike for higher wages, and the rights of residents of any and all developments to organize for Lower Rents (rent strike). Prove to us that every one of these rights you don't deny. Prove it. If not, then the reader can only ask: Who is the racist here, who is the anti-Semite? Who is pro income/social/educational/racial diversity, who is pro-gentrification and all that that implies including racism? Me or you?

KTG said...

rI have never called you a racist in any post, I am now pointing out the pattern of you using derogatory terms to refer to people who have different opinions. I am perplexed by your comment how does defending rights of the hardware store owners give you a pass on accusing me of racism.


I simply stated that when tax base in these cities felt under served they left that is a fact loss of industry and a lot of economic factors were key response I think very little was race based. Its no secret that while the adjusted tax rate of most upper class is lower than middle or working class they still provide bulk of tax revenue.


To be frank I really don't care and I won't post on threads because with you because you are not really worth the time. I did post abuse comment to disqus and blogspot..

CheshireKitty said...

Well, then, don't wave around the examples of Phila. and Detroit. Don't call what happened examples of anything but racism. The whites in those cities had no interest in sharing power with the African-American community so they fled, out of racism, pure and simple. Now, in our post-racial age, do you see the wealthy whites in the suburbs ringing Detroit returning? No. To me, that's indicative of lingering racism.


Yeah, the tax base in those cities collapsed because the whites - in Phila. exemplified by Rizzo - fled. Oh, and why was there a loss of industry? The same reason the whites fled - racism. It was *all* race-based KTG - don't try to skirt the issue. The problem is still in effect in nearby cities such as Newark, Jersey City. Luckily, there were enough people in NYC who did not panic after the riots so that some diversity was left - although a lot of whites fled NYC, not all left. And luckily too, Lindsay, who some prefer to vilify as being too liberal, did manage to largely keep the lid on the riots. It was Lindsay too who decided to develop RI as a mixed-income multi-ethnic community - not a haven for rich/whites only! The de facto housing segregation in all other parts of NYC which is the result of the sorting of neighborhoods by rent/purchase price of housing - is reversed on RI, where rich and poor live side by side.


You can't stomach that because you can't stand seeing poor black people everyday standing on the street, so you call me a racist for supporting their right to live here, including the use of Sec 8 voucher if necessary. If I'm a racist, then the NYS Legislature was racist in implementing the GDP, which mandated a mixed-income community, which took over the development of the island from the "laws" of the free market.


When has the free market resulted in social/class/racial housing integration? Never!


Lawsuits are still being filed to integrate housing in Westchester County to name one notable area that is supposed to integrate (build low cost housing projects in wealthy areas) but finds ways for the past 35 years or so, to block this important aspect of economic/social/racial integration.


Then don't post! As they say, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! Obviously, it is time for you to retreat and lick your wounds..

Mark Lyon said...

Ms. C, nobody has anything to prove to you. Knock it off with the hateful remarks directed at your neighbors. Further, if you persist in calling me a racist or anti-semite, there will be repercussions. You're more than capable of debating ideas and issues without being insulting and offensive.

CheshireKitty said...

I dare you - I won't stand for your threats, you bully. You were the one that made fun of that poor Jewish woman for voicing her concerns about cyclists - likening her to me. How do you know I'm not Jewish? I take slights like that very seriously. Anybody who insults Jews, should be called out. Back off!

CheshireKitty said...

Have you no shame? Picking on a pious Jewish man on the Holy Days? This, my friends, is insensitivity, this is racism. You really should be ashamed of yourself.

CheshireKitty said...

Go ahead Mark. Have Rick kick me and billblass, even Frank, off this blog.


You would want this forum reserved for neocons like you, KTG, and Old Rossie, wouldn't you. Just like you want RI given over to people like you, people who look just like you, who earn as much as you do, and who are as well-education as you.


That, unfortunately, is not the community you moved in to when you decided to live on RI. Instead, RI is a mixed-income, multi-ethnic community, with a diversity of opinions.


If I ask Old Rossie to prove that the whites who moved out of Philly and Detroits aren't racists, he can always try to find evidence that those whites weren't racists. It is my opinion and that of many others they moved for racial reasons, and many businesses left for the same reason. Now that we're living in a post-racial age, supposedly do you see the whites returning to Philly or Detroit? No! Why? Because they were racists then and they're still racists now. Their fleeing has nothing to do with economics - it has everything to do with class, their fear that they may "contaminate" themselves if they come into contact with the lower classes. The hollowing out and destruction of cities like Phila. and Detroit happened because of class and race based prejudice.


But, there is push-back: People all over the country have had about enough with income inequality, racism, you name it.
The election of a few days ago proved that New Yorkers are ready to take a step in the direction of equality, inclusion, tolerance - away from income inequality and racism.



Rossie doesn't see it that way. He's entitled to his opinion, but don't brand me a racist for supporting the right of poor people like billblass to live on RI - when they can only live here with the help of Sec 8 vouchers.


Rossie & KTG constantly dump on Bill - yet we do not see them dumping on the developers/landlords who turned the City into a wasteland where either you have to be a yuppie to survive, or need a Sec 8 voucher. Rossie and KTG give a pass to landlord greed - that's all-American, that's all right. Well, what about the 99% - those that aren't in a position to afford sky-high rents? If it were up to you, Rossie, and KTG, they would simply have to MOVE out of the gentrified enclaves, i.e. kicked to the curb. Very nice - I suppose you think I should get on the conservative bandwagon and applaud the mistreatment of the elderly, disabled, disadvantaged who can only survive with the social safety net. Well, that, Mark - I will never do. We, as a country, have advanced beyond the 19th C, with its teeming masses. And no-one, not you, not Rossie, not KTG - is going to ruin the US, make it unlivable for the vast majority of the population, the 99%. The country will be taken back from the 1% - starting in NYC, starting now..

OldRossie said...

Fine. if we all agree, will you go away? no one wants to read about racism, anti-antisemitism, whatever other garbage you want to shell out... And I think everyones made it clear they don't like the name calling.

CheshireKitty said...

You starting the name calling first. I can only defend myself. I am always called a racist when I stand up for the little guy, or the minorities. It's always like that - if I criticize the developers and stand up for the little guy, for guys like bill, then I must be a racist. Or if I stand up for the Korean-American hardware store owner, fiercely defend her, then I'm a racist. I'm always called a racist - for no reason. As far as anti-Semitism - that wasn't my fault. It was Mark - who brought up a nice Jewish lady's objection to reckless bicycle messengers, and likened me to her. How does he know I'm not Jewish? He might have guessed I am from references I have made to Hasidic proverbs. It seemed he was picking on me by selecting a Jewish person to mock and likening me to her - deliberately drawing the analogy between two Jews that might object to being run over by unsafe cyclists, as being "funny" or "comical". You tell me if that wasn't anti-Semitism.
I'll go away when you - all of you - stop calling me a racist for defending the underclass.

OldRossie said...

Frank, I like the analysis, and on the larger points I do agree with you. There's just 2 perspectives I want to bring in: (1) this blog has a lot of references to "the 1%ers", and approaches people with large bank accounts or high income as a collective. I think it's important to remember that many of those most prosperous give as much as they get. I don't want to go over the top, but if you disagree I'm sure we can find some examples. That said, when we discuss what "they" are thinking, we may want to qualify it better - executives of large companies, career politicians with wealthy backgrounds, whatever. Even then we should be careful - some executives establish employee compensation that's fair for all... so generalizations are tough. You rightfully noted that the middle class isn't necessarily defined by a specific range of income - "the 1%ers" is now a negative reference, so I'd say the same for "the 1%ers".
(2) - and this is strictly my own opinion - the executives and people in positions of power don't necessarily care about the long term impact of their design. The latest mortgage meltdown is a good example, as there are many bankers currently enjoying a comfortable early retirement. Your points still make sense, but I would argue that that should be on the mind of politicians, not "the 1%ers". The trouble there being most politicians are as concerned about the long term as a wealthy executive. Bad situation...

Frank Farance said...

CK, an un-neighborly boast: "I think I'm finally getting to you - at least you admit you are considering leaving not only RI, but the NY area". CK, you're happy that you're getting someone to move off the Island?

How is that consistent with your "I'm not a demagogue - I'm a democrat (small letter "D")" ... I thought democracy was about accommodating a variety of opinions, not about getting so disagreeable that it causes people to leave with the purported victor's relishing "Thus, I've "beaten" you. Admit it Rossie, you're "beaten". You are even admitting that you may leave NYC.".

CK, how can one believe "I [CK] always defend the underclass" when you're unwilling to hear alternative opinions and read too much into interpretations (as you did with the GDP and the red bus).

You also boast:


[CK:] "I am satisfied that I've out-argued you. I think you are flailing now, incoherently, and frankly, I pity you. If you had just taken a moment to go back and look at your above latest comment, you could have seen how poorly-organized, and really, how below the usual level of your comments it is - it's not an effort up to par, for you; that means you're definitely rattled."


wouldn't your words really apply to YOU? The phrase Pot Calling The Kettle Black comes to mind. :-)

CheshireKitty said...

That was my opinion of his comment - I can't say what You think of what I write, that's up to you to decide. If you think my comments are as disorganized and poorly reasoned as Rossie's, that is your opinion. But, obviously, I beg to disagree.


Anyway, it is un-neighborly of me to take a triumphalist stance vs Rossie, most uncharitable. And I don't mean that ironically, either.


Rossie - look: Obviously, we disagree about many things, but we shouldn't lapse into name-calling, etc. Neither of us has changed the other's opinion, after all the comments we've exchanged, all the mud-slinging.


Frank is right - we should agree to disagree in an upright, straightforward manner, without the snark or vehemence. After all, on one level, we're all in the same boat - trying to get by, living in the urban equivalent of a very small town, isolated in the middle of a tidal estuary. We should have positive, constructive conversations on this blog. There are many other blogs out there for those of us who get something out of adding controversial comments to a thread.


We know billblass always tries to spark controversy - that's his thing. We've discussed his problems repeatedly, from every angle. We all understand the various aspects, pros and cons, of his situation. It's up to him to decide what to do in the end. What's the point of dumping on him? He doesn't like being in Sec 8, that's clear. He's in a quandary. Us arguing about him and the millions like him who rely on various forms of assistance - what will change from our discussion? Not much. If we feel strongly enough about the topic, we can write our Congressmen, or Senators, and tell them what our thoughts are on Sec 8 and Food Stamps. To simply have endless discussions about social safety net programs, which probably finally made billblass somewhat uncomfortable as he eventually tuned out, is pointless.

Newtothis said...

Gun Crime up after stop-and-frisk ruling


http://nypost.com/2013/09/19/gunstats/

CheshireKitty said...

Almost identical story appeared in another rabid right-wing rag Newsmax http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/new-york-gun-violence/2013/09/19/id/526696.


Let's see if the story appeared in at least a neutral publication; still looking.

CheshireKitty said...

Not only do I think like DeBlasio, about 65% of the City does. You, Rossie, are the political dinosaur, and your privileged position is about to collapse. The people - the demos - is on the rise!


The current polls show Deblasio demolishing Lhota 3:1.


http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/poll-de-blasio-holds-3-1-lead-over-lhota-wins-quinn-endorsement-1.6087948



Some select quotes from the above Newsday article; and incidentally, to be perfectly clear, BTW Newsday is not an organ of the left (or as Rossie likes to characterize the downtrodden - the "crazies"):


"De Blasio is winning with all groups..."


"the city's largest municipal labor union, DC 37 ... endorsed de Blasio"



"The Marist poll showed that 51 percent of voters said Giuliani's support of Lhota will make them less likely to vote for him. [:-D] It also found de Blasio dominating 86 percent to 3 percent among blacks, 74 percent to 11 percent among Latinos and 50 percent to 37 percent among whites." [!!!] ("Comments" in brackets mine.)



"...41 percent of those questioned had an unfavorable view of Lhota"


Good times!

CheshireKitty said...

As long as unemployment and the cost of living remain stubbornly high, with wages kept low, the need for food stamps and other subsides will remain. The economic conditions squeezing the working class lead to the chronic need for benefits/subsidies.

In the following article, a neighborhood in Baltimore is cited as containing close to 90% EBT recipients. Probably, this isn't unusual nationwide; probably there are more families - even those with one or 2 adults working, elderly, disabled, and so forth - who rely on food stamps that most people realize.

And the reason for that? The cost of living is too high for them to live on their low wages, or modest pension, or SSDI etc.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/19/food-stamps-snap-poverty-poor/2832289/

OldRossie said...

CBS and Daily Mail are reporting the same, and I'm sure it'll grow as statistics are reviewed. This is a tricky one though - I would think it's the epitome of an illegal search and seizure (I don't have a good understanding of that rule though..). That said, there's nothing proactive police can do that would help stop the flow of guns and drugs (that I know of). This is an aggressive way to permit cops to search people, but it's up front. Alternatively, maybe they'd loosen the rules around what would be considered "just cause", which may end up being even more intrusive.
Talking out of my rear here, but I guess my 2 cents would be that this should have been evaluated a little deeper and more publicly before they started doing it in the first place.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/sources-shootings-up-in-nyc-since-stop-and-frisk-ruling/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425055/Shootings-10-New-York-City-federal-judge-rules-stop-search-unconstitutional-racist.html

CheshireKitty said...

Interestingly, Scheindlin - the judge that ruled against stop 'n' frisk, in refusing to consider a stay, pointed out that "in the first half of 2013, 'stop and frisk' stops dropped 50% as compared to the previous year and yet, crime failed to skyrocket (or even tick upwards). Instead, the overall crime rate dropped 2.7%." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130917/18450624562/judge-scheindlin-shuts-down-nycs-request-stay-ruling-finding-stop-frisk-unconstitutional.shtml

Bloomberg/Kelly are behind the stats - they must be manipulating those numbers to suit their purpose. I can't prove that of course, but the number don't make sense in light of the stats Scheindlin cited. They want to torpedo the effort to end stop and frisk, also Kelly knows he's out if/when DeBlasio is elected. BB & Kelly work in tandem with the establishment to provide ammo to Lhota, so that he can somehow/incredibly win in Nov.

CBS: It's a reliable pro-establishment organization. Is it considered to have a pro-liberal bias? It's certainly not an NBC.

Daily Mail? At least according to one commenter, it's described as follows:"Then the sort of "middle-ground" tabloids - fiercely right-wing, bigoted and full of opinions:Daily Mail - more right wing than the tory party. Anti just about everything, but especially foreigners, young people, Europe, foreigners, the working classes and foreigners." http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110329060319AA5HctL

OldRossie said...

So I understand what you're saying: the stats are wrong because (1) bloomberg manipulates the numbers, (2) a blogger on yahoo.answers said daily mail is unreliable, and (3) CBS is no NBC.
Your boy De Blasio doesn't agree with banning it.