Jump to content
In his most recent post Dan S says "I said I wasn't advocating for or against affordable housing. There, I said it again in case you missed it."
9 days ago in this thread Dan S said "Affordable housing is important to a tourist driven economy so that the essential low wage workers can have a place to live."
8 days ago in this thread Dan S said this "Resort towns are dependent on low wage workers and these workers have to have some where affordable to live. This is a common issue with resort towns and nothing new. The free market capitalist system will not fill the need for affordable housing. The profits just aren't there or the need would be filled. That's one of the reasons we have gubbamint. To step in and fill a need that is for the common good of all, when the free market system fails to do so."
5 days ago in this thread Dan S. says this "There are in fact societal "needs," maybe you prefer to call them wants, but I call them needs, that must be met in order for an economy to sustain itself. Needs like a habitable place to live that is affordable. Affordable can be defined as a percentage of income. In order for a resort economy to be sustainable and even grow, there must be a supply of low wage workers. You know, people to clean the rooms, wait tables, teach skiing, etc. These workers "need" to be able to afford to live in the community where they work in order to be productive. Affordable housing is of course not the "highest and best use" of the scarce resource, "land." There is not sufficient profit motive to attract investors to build affordable housing in resort communities, therefore government must step in and provide the incentive."
Yep Dan S. you are definitely not advocating for public housing. AHAHAHAHAHA! What a bunch of hooey. Do you even read your own stuff or just throw your lefty liberal talking points against the wall and hope they stick.
Also love your dig at those who disagree with you "Russell, I'm glad you enjoy the comments, back and forth and educated arguments. Sometimes I'm not so sure about the educated part." Or maybe you were referring to yourself. LOL!
And again I will ask - How much of an increase in taxes are you willing to absorb to subsidize affordable housing that you were for before you apparently flip flopped and said you are neither for or against?
Dan S says I criticize the ACA with layers and layers of doomsday predictions. Dan S please cite examples where I did that. What I provided were real examples of problems that are occurring now. I do get tired of your mistruths. You say it is working for you and millions of others. Wow, tremendous. What about the millions upon millions that had a plan, were told they could keep their plan and then lost there plan. Just battlefield collateral damage and no matter to you. No surprise to me. It's all about touting the left wing liberal ideology regardless of the damage it might inflict. Sad, in a funny kind of way. By the way, still waiting for your answer on who should pay, subsidize affordable housing in Steamboat and how much you Dan S are personally willing to contribute in increased taxes or is the reality that you want subsidized affordable housing as long as you don't need to contribute.
Dan S. As you brought up the ACA in this forum - Is this the one you are talking about - the if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
Is this the same ACA you are lauding?
O and by the way. I do believe out health care industry has issues and needs to be fixed. Start by doing away with all the regulations that require so much paperwork that providers are buried. But your government is not the answer. All they do is spend money we don't have and pass laws we don't need.
Some snippets from the interweb using the google.
The miraculous, efficient, cost-saving, innovative 21st-century government-run “marketplaces” were supposed to put the “affordable” in Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Know-it-all bureaucrats were going to show private companies how to set up better websites (gigglesnort), implement better marketing and outreach (guffaw), provide superior customer service (belly laugh), and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse (LOLOLOL).
You will be shocked beyond belief, I’m sure, to learn that Obamacare exchanges across the country are instead bleeding money, seeking more taxpayer bailouts
“Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future,” The Washington Post reported last week. The news comes despite $5 billion in federal taxpayer subsidies for IT vendors, call centers and all the infrastructure and manpower needed to prop up the showcase government health insurance entities.
While private health insurance exchanges have operated smoothly and satisfied customers for decades, the Obamacare models are on life support. Oregon’s exchange is six feet under — shuttered last year after government overseers squandered $300 million on their failed website and shady consultants who allegedly set up a phony website to trick the feds. The FBI and the U.S. HHS inspector general’s office reportedly have been investigating the racket for more than a year now.
In the People’s Republic of Hawaii, which has been a “trailblazer” of socialized medicine for nearly four decades, the profligate state-run exchange demanded a nearly $30 million cash infusion to remain financially viable after securing $205 million for startup costs. The Hawaii Health Connector accidentally disconnected hundreds of poor patients’ accounts and squandered an estimated 8,000 hours on technological glitches and failures. After failing to secure a bailout, Hawaii announced this week that its exchange would be shut down amid rising debt.
In Maryland, a state audit found that its health insurance exchange “improperly billed the federal government $28.4 million as former Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration struggled to launch what would become one of the most troubled websites in the nation,” The Baltimore Sun reported in late March. That’s in addition to the $90 million the state blew on technical problems. The state scrapped its junk website and forced enrollees to resubmit to the tortuous sign-up process all over again.
Really Scott W. I mean really. You have to comment on this.
PS: Good luck Tatum Burger - play well.
So Dan S says "a place reasonably close to where you work". So now we have affordable, habitable, reasonably close. I would love a definition of those terms Dan S. My guess is you won't even try. Just like you won't tell us how you think affordable, habitable, reasonably close housing should be paid for. I know - government should pay for it. Again I will ask you, where do you think the money is going to come from. A snap of the fingers and the money shows up. How much are you Dan S. willing to contribute from your pay check in the way of taxes (you do pay taxes don't you - that would be the ultimate irony - you wanting subsidized housing and you pay no taxes) to subsidize some one else's housing so they can live in Steamboat. Not every one can afford to live here in Steamboat. That is just the unfortunate truth. I guess given that there are low wage earners that can't afford to live in Steamboat and don't have or can't afford transportation you probably think they should have their transportation costs subsidized as well. When does it stop? Is it possible you are just a troll for more and more government spending. To infinity and beyond. Have you gone to Skicorp and explained to them that their low wage policy is not good for the workers. Maybe Skicorp could get a sweet deal on the undeveloped parcel of Ski Time Square and put up dormitory style employee housing LOL
Phoebe -I like it
Neil, what am I missing. Where is Allen asking for an eye for an eye
So Dan S. You say that affordable habitable housing is a need for an economy to sustain itself. First there is no way to define either affordable or habitable. One person's want is another person's need. Second, who is going to pay for it? How much more are you Dan S. willing to pay in taxes for those folks you say "need" affordable habitable housing. How much more of your paycheck are you willing to give up to subsidize some one else's housing. That money doesn't come out of thin air regardless of what our government and or the FED try to tell us. Here is an idea, petition ski corp. (your employer I believe) to double their minimum wage. That should help their employees afford housing. Until rents went up, until cheeseburger prices on the mountain and around town went up, until prices for day passes, season passes, ski lessons went up. Ah yes, the laws of unintended consequences.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret Thatcher
Brian and Jeff,
Thanks for the links to recipes and techniques. Have book marked them.
The best part about of all this. It's the guys weighing in on cooking. Chris, Jeff, Brian, Tom, John is your house like my house. Guys do the cooking? I happen to love it. The lovely Mrs. K ran the kitchen while we raised kids and I went to work. The least I can do is take over kitchen duties.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.