- cross-posted to:
- chat
You must log in or register to comment.
I just wish Carter didn't signal boost fucking Habitat for Humanity. What a garbage non-profit.
So, several reasons.
-
They make those helped buy the home, which requires credit checks, therefore excluding the vast majority of minority applicants.
-
They use the money recouped by these mortgages to fund overseas missionary work where they've been accused of requiring "helped" villages to build a church before any houses can be built.
-
They require those helped to "donate" "sweat equity" on other projects. These are people supposedly already needing assistance, meaning they likely work multiple jobs, and now they must give up literally hundreds of additional hours of their life not being with their family or relaxing, but "earning" the help Habitat donated.
Further problems with our local Habitat that may or may not be nation wide: They build houses larger than area average and lobby against relaxing restrictions on multi-family housing. Then, when a family can't pay their Habitat mortgage, it is sold to real estate companies which happens frequently. They also help ~8 families per year with a budget of over $3 million, compared to another local nonprofit, a Rebuilding Together affiliate, that helps ~30 families per year with a budget of less than $500 thousand.
This seems a little weak. "Garbage" certainly looks like an overreaction. Anyone out there building homes for people who can't otherwise afford them should get significant deference unless they're doing something really shady.
They make those helped buy the home, which requires credit checks, therefore excluding the vast majority of minority applicants
If they can help out more families this way, and the families can pay something, this isn't a bad plan. Also, it's better than what people could get on their own, so it's still good even if it's not perfect. Having and paying a mortgage is also a way to build credit, so a cheap enough mortgage could be a net benefit (especially if you don't have a lot of other ways of building credit).
fund overseas missionary work where they’ve been accused of requiring “helped” villages to build a church before any houses can be built
While I'm not a fan of religion, if they build a neighborhood along with the church that's a net gain even if it's not ideal.
they likely work multiple jobs, and now they must give up literally hundreds of additional hours of their life not being with their family or relaxing, but “earning” the help Habitat donated
They need labor and money to build houses. Sure, the ideal solution is to use federal dollars to guarantee housing for all, but absent that, requiring someone who can't contribute money to contribute labor doesn't strike me as unfair (especially as this allows them to help more people). I've never heard of them putting someone in financial straits with this arrangement, either; quite the opposite.
They build houses larger than area average and lobby against relaxing restrictions on multi-family housing.
This looks like an eye towards resale value. In my experience they're not building McMansions or anything (I've only worked on pretty modest houses), if they want the family to eventually be able to sell you don't want to build too small, and I'm guessing multi-family housing could also make selling more difficult.
They also help ~8 families per year with a budget of over $3 million, compared to another local nonprofit, a Rebuilding Together affiliate, that helps ~30 families per year with a budget of less than $500 thousand.
Rebuilding Together looks like a fine group, but it also looks like they focus on home repairs, not new home construction. Maybe this is a better strategy -- I don't know -- but it doesn't look like a direct comparison.
-
If the New Democrats wanted to keep their heads they’d use FDRs policies and save capitalism as he was known to boast
i think you mean the beginning of the carter era. carter was the first neo-liberal. “We really need to realize that there is a limit to the role and the function of government,” Carter said in his first State of the Union address, in 1978. “Bit by bit we are chopping down the thicket of unnecessary federal regulations by which government too often interferes in our personal lives and our personal business.”
for sure, no argument there, just hate how carter always gets a pass and even spoken fondly of, when he was the originator of the entire fucking shabang.
I'm sorry but FDR sucks
- Internment camps for Japanese people
- Overthrew the government of Panama
- Conceeded to Dixiecrats on the New Deal, meaning less benefits for Blacks
- Saved American capitalism instead of destroying it.
It became formally illegal in 1937 under FDR, but the War on Drugs didn't start until Nixon.
He did a lot of good things, too; "sucks" is not the best overall assessment.
The country had a strong fascist presence at the time, too. The American Nazi Party held open rallies, a proto-Rush Limbaugh was on the radio nationwide, and don't forget about the Business Plot to overthrow FDR. This was also smack in the middle of the Jim Crow era, with the KKK (an armed right-wing paramilitary familiar with conducting violence) near one of its strongest points in history.
Just keeping the country from going down that road is an enormous accomplishment. A world where the U.S. sat out WWII (or more likely joined on the Axis side) would be far worse than the world we have today, as shitty as the world we have today is. In helping Joey Steel beat the fascists, FDR also stamped the message of "Nazi stuff bad, fighting Nazis good" onto the American brain, and the echoes of that have been and continue to be useful in fighting the most fascist parts of American society.
A few other points on FDR:
- Criticizing him for not going farther left is legitimate, but he arguably went as far left as he was politically able to. A bunch of his pro-worker legislation got shot down by the Supreme Court until he threatened to pack it, the aforementioned Business Plot was a literal fascist coup planned against him, and all the reactionary forces of today's America were an order of magnitude more potent. He had a lot of power, but he couldn't rule by fiat and the Democratic Party was not 100% under his control.
- Programs like rural electrification and various public works programs are what separate many parts of this country from the developing world. It's also a proven blueprint for the type of programs the left can propose to get votes from places modern Democratic politicians can't reach unless they run as conservatives.
- Social Security and the other safety net policies he implemented are proof-of-concept for stuff like M4A and were philosophically a good direction for the country to go (i.e., firmly establishing that the federal government should do material things to benefit working people is likely a prerequisite for socialism in the U.S.). The best way to show that a mass social program can work is pointing to one that does work right here at home.
- His open and heavily propagandized alliance with the Soviet Union made it possible to avoid the Cold War and the post-war return to anti-communism as state religion. We didn't go down that path, but I'd argue most of that is on Truman, and even getting to the point where avoiding all that was conceivable is impressive. We're an imperial core country that invaded Russia during its Civil War and we'd been fighting militant leftists at home since the turn of the century -- the type of détente we had with the USSR during the war did not have to happen, and the fact that FDR was open to it was good. It also likely shortened the war compared to more limited assistance or just letting the Soviets fend for themselves.
If some chud lists a bunch of bad things Stalin did, do you just agree he was a shitty leader? No, you place his actions within the context of what realistic alternatives he had, and you note that he did a lot of good things that offset at least some criticisms. You should view FDR the same way.
the USA pretty much was gonna sit out WWII until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on America.
There's a credible theory that the U.S. knew Japan would likely attack Pearl Harbor soon, but did nothing to prevent it in order to facilitate the country's entry into WWII. That sort of action-by-inaction is easy to imagine one person at the top pulling off, and FDR was not in the isolationist camp.
Didn’t anti-communism become even more of a state religion after WWII than it was before WWII?
Yes, but FDR at least made it possible to take another path. At the end of WWII the Soviets didn't want to immediately get in another expensive war, and they certainly didn't want to get into a conflict with the only nuclear power on the planet. Former colonized people had worked directly with the U.S. throughout the war (e.g., Ho Chi Minh) and mostly just wanted what the U.S. claimed to support -- free elections and self-determination. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence is closely modeled after the U.S. document for these exact reasons. The U.S. was also functionally in charge of creating the U.N. and the whole post-war legal and economic order, and we could have structured it in any number of ways that would have been cooperative rather than confrontational. Domestically, we had just portrayed the Soviets as good allies for years, and a president committed to peace could have doubled down on that.
We held all the cards and could have potentially avoided the Cold War had we had capable leadership. Dragging the imperial core to the point where that was even a possibility wasn't entirely FDR's doing, but he should get some credit for it.
the problem is FDR didnt built a personality cult around himself like Reagan did
That’s a good point that dumb people will miss. FDR was all about movement and results. He had the juice but didn’t use it.
To my knowledge Reagan didn't do that himself -- his brain was mush by 1986 or so anyways -- it was Nancy Reagan and the party. "Tear Down This Myth" is a good book on the subject.
It makes me sad that he was the high water mark. Like, you guys know about the internment camps and stuff, right?
APAB.
You are right, which makes it all the more tragic that his policies were still racist as shit. Dude didn't even go that far and he's still the most lefty president we've ever had.
Because then they would have to acknowledge that they could do more but choose not to help the people
