Liberals – with the help of the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the good old Nazi days or Joseph Stalin’s TASS in Moscow’s heyday – have convinced most ignorant people (i.e., the majority of the American people) that they are the ones who care about the poor.
They’ll tell you that unless you believe in their socialism you’re not a real Christian. Even as they demand that art that puts the cross of Christ in a jar of urine be publicly funded and even as they openly attack religion on virtually every level of culture.
Obama sure didn’t give a flying damn about the poor before he decided to break his promise and run for president after saying he wouldn’t. Because prior to that, he didn’t give the poor butkus. And as hard as it is to be more cynical and selfish and greedy than Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden actually managed to pull it off. Obama’s less than one percent charitable giving – you know, with his OWN money rather than forcing other people to “give” – looks pretty damn good compared to Joe Biden’s less than one-eighth of one percent.
How do Democrats get away with demonizing Republicans when there are ten demons in them? It’s easy: they are as dishonest and as slanderous as they are hypocritical. So Mitt Romney – who was actually incredibly generous with his own money – was slandered by the media propaganda as being greedy while Barack Obama who actually IS greedy was eulogized as somebody who care’s deeply about these people he didn’t give a penny to when it mattered.
That’s why it was so easy for the party of FDR, of JFK, for 2000 Democrat candidate Al Gore and for 2004 Democrat candidate John Kerry to demonize Mitt Romney because he was rich just like they all were. When you combine the flagrant dishonesty of the Democrat Party and the flagrant propaganda of the leftwing elite media, you can get away with pretty much anything.
Michelle Malkin in her excellent book “Culture of Corruption” documented that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s top adviser was a ruthless liberal slumlord in Chicago before she became a liberal saint in Washington.
That’s right. A slumlord.
But the Chicago Way is all the rave now. Which is why liberal psycho Major Bloomberg took the trick with him to New York:
How in NYC the Homeless Pay $3,000/Month to Live in Tenements
Posted on February 12, 2013
I read a lot of news every day. It’s become my life and my passion. Rarely do I come across a story of greed and corruption so absurd that I can’t believe my own eyes as they scroll the page. This is one of those stories.
This takes the concept of slumlord to an entirely new level. As New York City struggles to find shelter for its increasingly large homeless population, some landlords are paying off their rent-stabilized tenants in order to overcharge the city on rentals for the homeless. In some cases, the rent ends up being as high as $3,000 a month for a tiny room without a kitchen or a bathroom. Yep, you read that correctly. So next time you wonder why you are paying so much money for your little box in the sky, you can thank America’s growing slumlord industry. Prepare your jaw to remain open for the next couple of minutes.
From the New York Times:
The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women.
Indeed, the amount the city pays — roughly half that amount goes to the landlord, while the other half pays for security and social services for homeless tenants — has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.
The fact that these modest living spaces have such high rents opens a window on a peculiarity of the city’s overall homeless policy. That policy, which was put in place in response to court settlements in 1979 and 2008, requires the city, under threat of sizable fines, to find a roof immediately for every homeless person. It has given landlords willing to house the homeless leverage to dictate rental prices and other terms.
With the number of homeless people rising to 30-year record levels — over 47,216 people as of early this month, 20,000 of them children — the city has struggled to find landlords willing to accommodate a population that includes people with mental health and substance abuse problems.
Wait a minute. The number of homeless is at a 30 year high? How could this be in the booming economic recovery we’ve got going?
Joyce Colon, a resident there who entered the homeless system in December, said she was shocked by the violence and prostitution in the building.
“For $3,000 I could have gotten an apartment, a down payment and a security deposit and some furniture,” Ms. Colon, 49, said. “The landlord is getting $3,000 and I’m getting nothing.”
Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition for the Homeless, blamed the Bloomberg administration for the continuing use of private landlords to house the homeless, citing a policy not to give the homeless priority for public housing projects and Section 8 vouchers because of long waiting lists.
Of course Bloomberg has his little paws in this somehow. Perhaps he should’ve thought about this instead of spending his time banning large sodas.
“The crisis that’s causing the city to open so many new shelters is mostly of the mayor’s own making,” he said. “Instead of moving families out of shelters and into permanent housing, as previous mayors did, the city is now paying millions to landlords with a checkered past of harassing low-income tenants and failing to address hazardous conditions.”
Welcome to the recovery.
Full article here.
In Liberty, Mike
Follow me on Twitter!
“We need to help those poor, poor people,” liberals say.
Because just like everybody else, the poor have way to much money for liberals to be happy unless they can steal it.
I’m a conservative, which means I don’t like slums. And I sure don’t like the government creating them the way they’ve created Cabrini-Green and so many other thousands of hellholes. Liberals love them and keep creating more and more and more of them and they get filthy rich doing it. Because the more ignorant and the more oppressed and the more poverty-crushed and the more welfare-dependent and the more entitlement-demanding these desperate people are, the more they will vote for the people who are keeping them ignorant and oppressed and poor.
The fact of the matter is that conservatives are signficantly more generous with their own money and time than are liberals.
But the wolves have convinced the sheep that the sheepdogs are out to get them. And now the sheepdogs are largely out of the wolves’ way.
P.S. Obama is nominating Penny Pritzker for Commerce Secretary – who happens to be the SAME Penny Pritzker who was at the EPICENTER of the sub-prime loan crisis that led to our housing collapse in 2008. This same Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker paid out a half million dollars in penalties (read “bribe money”) to the government to avoid being criminally charged like the common criminal Chicago thug she in fact is. If I were a conspiracy theoriest, I would assume that Democrats literally intentionally created the 2008 collapse in order to take control of the government so they could REALLY destroy America from within the system.
P.P.S. Obama is a hypocrite who keeps showing the abject hypocrsiy of liberalism with his pick of Jack Lew to run the Treasury Department. Remember how being rich and having investments in the Cayman Islands was really, really bad? Well, that’s only true if the Cayman Island account holder happens to be a Republican; it’s FINE for Democrats. But let’s also not forget that Jack Lew was actually heading up the unit at Citibank that was making huge profits betting that the Community Reinvestment Act-created housing bubble would colllapse and thus profiteering off of poor people. And then there’s the fact that this turd accepted a nearly one million dollar “bonus” days before Citibank took BILLIONS in government bailout money. Which is to say that Obama’s Treasury Secretary pick personally profitted from poor people being forced out of their homes into … slums.
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Obama’s present pick for Treasury Secretary is better than the last one – who was a certified tax cheat being given the job to make sure that conservatives and Republicans paid “their fair share” of the taxes HE didn’t pay.