This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

[rightwinger]

POLICE FORCES ARE a SOCIAL PROGRAM, too, folks.

I am happy to consider cutting social programs, just as I am any other budget item. There are doubtless frills and waste we could eliminate. But I'm not willing to risk the lives and health of the poor -- some cuts are just too deep.

Nighttime basketball cut? Fine. Lead paint abatement? No fucking way.

Given that people lived with lead for about 50 years or more, how much actual good does their "lead paint abatement" program actually do?
I realize that asking for results from programs is tantamount to advocating child slavery for some folks. But maybe, just maybe, someone ought to consider that a program to do such and such and actually doing such and such are not the same thing.

What is next on your list? Asbestos?

Could I interest you in some mercury?

 

[The Rabbi]

I am happy to consider cutting social programs, just as I am any other budget item. There are doubtless frills and waste we could eliminate. But I'm not willing to risk the lives and health of the poor -- some cuts are just too deep.

Nighttime basketball cut? Fine. Lead paint abatement? No fucking way.

Given that people lived with lead for about 50 years or more, how much actual good does their "lead paint abatement" program actually do?
I realize that asking for results from programs is tantamount to advocating child slavery for some folks. But maybe, just maybe, someone ought to consider that a program to do such and such and actually doing such and such are not the same thing.

*Sigh*

I suppose we could bring back polio as well, The Rabbi. People "used to live with that" as well.

My word, but you can be obnoxious, you know that?

How about answering the question for a change? WHat actual good did this program do?

 

[Madeline]

You know that lead is poisonous, correct? The paint can flake off in small enough particles to be inhaled, and the larger ones are sometimes eaten by children. The poison can kill, but in smaller amounts it causes severe damage, including mental retardation.

The paint has been illegal in the US since the 1970's, but the housing stock in Cleveland, and in many Northern cities, is quite old. Most of it is wooden, too, so the exterior of homes can be dangerous just as the interior can.

When a home undergoes lead abatement, either by stripping the paint off or by encapsulating it, the occupants are safe from this poison. Now, this may seem like an unworthy effort to you, but to me, I approve. It is not usually a hugely expensive process, the federal government kicks in quite a bit of money, and it saves lives.

Kinda sorta like removing asbestos.

Understand now?

 

[rightwinger]

You know that lead is poisonous, correct? The paint can flake off in small enough particles to be inhaled, and the larger ones are sometimes eaten by children. The poison can kill, but in smaller amounts it causes severe damage, including mental retardation.

The paint has been illegal in the US since the 1970's, but the housing stock in Cleveland, and in many Northern cities, is quite old. Most of it is wooden, too, so the exterior of homes can be dangerous just as the interior can.

When a home undergoes lead abatement, either by stripping the paint off or by encapsulating it, the occupants are safe from this poison. Now, this may seem like an unworthy effort to you, but to me, I approve. It is not usually a hugely expensive process, the federal government kicks in quite a bit of money, and it saves lives.

Kinda sorta like removing asbestos.

Understand now?

Look....

Rabbi ate lead paint when he was a kid and he turned out just fine....

 

[signelect]

Why is it that when we belong to one way of thinking and the other side does something we don't agree with they are labeled idiots. Yet as I read the post it seems that we all blame the other side regardless of the topic, it is really boring along with the name calling. We, the voters, just don't get it, both sides are messing with us and they are winning. They want to cut the budget. In Texas we are facing a 25 billion shortfall and they want to cut education, that translate to teachers, not administrators. The administrators make salaries way out of line with teachers and contribute "0" to a child ability to do the 3 "Rs" but they need to keep their job. How about a concept where we all give up a little.

The prison system solution is simple, build ONE prison with 1000 beds. When number 1001 shows up make room. If that concept doesn't appeal to you stop breaking the law.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Laying off Police and Corrections is not the same as Privatizing them.

Decriminalizing some offenses has been talked about for many decades before Ohio got it's new Governor.

Eliminating the Death Penalty doesn't save money. Executing Death Row Prisoners does.

 

[Madeline]

Laying off Police and Corrections is not the same as Privatizing them.

Decriminalizing some offenses has been talked about for many decades before Ohio got it's new Governor.

Eliminating the Death Penalty doesn't save money. Executing Death Row Prisoners does.

Mad, eliminating the death penalty might could save money. I think it should be considered. In Florida in the late 1990's, when last I knew for sure, the state supreme court dedicated 50% of its time to handling DP appeals. Not all criminal appeals, Mad...just DP. Add to that the cost of all other appellate work, the housing costs death row imposes, etc. and it is usually the case that it costs about $1 million more per prisoner to execute as opposed to LWOP. (The figure is an average and so, Ohio may have a different experience, which is why I think they should study it.)

No one is saying laying off police and corrections staff is the same as privatizing prisons, or at least I'm not.

 

[Vel]

You know that lead is poisonous, correct? The paint can flake off in small enough particles to be inhaled, and the larger ones are sometimes eaten by children. The poison can kill, but in smaller amounts it causes severe damage, including mental retardation.

The paint has been illegal in the US since the 1970's, but the housing stock in Cleveland, and in many Northern cities, is quite old. Most of it is wooden, too, so the exterior of homes can be dangerous just as the interior can.

When a home undergoes lead abatement, either by stripping the paint off or by encapsulating it, the occupants are safe from this poison. Now, this may seem like an unworthy effort to you, but to me, I approve. It is not usually a hugely expensive process, the federal government kicks in quite a bit of money, and it saves lives.

Kinda sorta like removing asbestos.

Understand now?

Since this is not a hugely expensive process, what is the homeowner's responsibility in the removal? How did it become a government responsibility to renovate personal property?

 

[Madeline]

Vel6377 wrote:

Since this is not a hugely expensive process, what is the homeowner's responsibility in the removal? How did it become a government responsibility to renovate personal property?

It is a homeowner's responsibility, Vel. In Ohio (as in most states, I am sure) you can almost never legally transfer title to a residence with lead paint unless it has been abated, and an inspection to determine this is required. But lead paint also appears on public buildings and on housing stock that is rented to the poor. In some cities, like ours, the owners of the buildings will not be able to pay to make improvements like abatement and the government programs help keep poor and working poor families from harm.

It was the government who failed to prevent lead paint from being used, and the government who has declared that homes with lead paint cannot be rented or sold. It doesn't seem unreasonable to spend some taxpayer dollars to help address the problem, and the payoffs in public health are enormous.

Lead paint abatement is widely considered one of the most successful environmental health programs going.

 

[Vel]

Vel6377 wrote:

Since this is not a hugely expensive process, what is the homeowner's responsibility in the removal? How did it become a government responsibility to renovate personal property?

It is a homeowner's responsibility, Vel. In Ohio (as in most states, I am sure) you can almost never legally transfer title to a residence with lead paint unless it has been abated, and an inspection to determine this is required. But lead paint also appears on public buildings and on housing stock that is rented to the poor. In some cities, like ours, the owners of the buildings will not be able to pay to make improvements like abatement and the government programs help keep poor and working poor families from harm.

It was the government who failed to prevent lead paint from being used, and the government who has declared that homes with lead paint cannot be rented or sold. It doesn't seem unreasonable to spend some taxpayer dollars to help address the problem, and the payoffs in public health are enormous.

Lead paint abatement is widely considered one of the most successful environmental health programs going.

If someone owns a building that they are renting to others for a profit, then the onus should be on them to be certain that the property that they're renting out is safe for habitation. If the owners of the buildings can't pay for the abatement, then the buildings should be condemned. Taxpayer money should only pay for renovations to publicly owned buildings.
Just curious as to why you think the government should have known to prevent the use of lead based paints years before science showed them to be dangerous?

 

[Madeline]

Vel wrote:

If someone owns a building that they are renting to others for a profit, then the onus should be on them to be certain that the property that they're renting out is safe for habitation. If the owners of the buildings can't pay for the abatement, then the buildings should be condemned. Taxpayer money should only pay for renovations to publicly owned buildings.
Just curious as to why you think the government should have known to prevent the use of lead based paints years before science showed them to be dangerous?

Yes, looking to the owners to repair rental property they own would be ideal, Vel. But Cleveland has a great need for safe, affordable housing and an ever-shrinking pool of landlords willing to provide it.

As for the government's role, it's similar to other pollutants, IMO. Before the creation of the EPA (and sometimes even after) there was often a lag between the scientific discovery of a material's poisonous effect on humans and the government's imposition of a ban.

I'll have to admit you have exhausted my knowledge of the lead abatement program now, Vel. I'm not a scientist myself, and I'm not in real estate, etc. so I dun really know all the particulars.

 

[rikules]

Putting profits into the prison system guarantees that we'll need more prisoners.

Privatizing Prisons is a BAD idea.

I dun know all that much about Corrections, theDoctorisIn. Why's it a bad idea?

because the first rule of big business is "get BIGGER"

big businesses are like black holes

they go around sucking up everything they can so they can get bigger

in order for a big business/private prison to be "SUCCESSFUL" it MUST GROW!
(at least THAT is what the ceo and the shareholders will believe)

grow?
how?
MORE PRISONERS!

more prisoners?
how?

MORE CRIMES!
MAKE MORE THINGS ILLEGAL!
and then GET TOUGH ON CRIME!

ideally the ceo and the shareholders of a bigbusinees//privateprison will NOT be truelly happy (success!) until the entire population is in prison....


after that....it's on to Canada....mexico...south America....

(just theorizing...)