Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Subjekt: Re: In the US, what we call "low income" housing is government subsidized housing. Sometimes they are called housing developments or "the projects".
Iamon lyme: Subsidies for new homes (often termed 'social housing grant') amount to sizeable public investments. In its 2008–11 Prospectus, the Housing Corporation stated that in the three-year period to 2011 subsidy would be "at least £8 billion".[5] The majority of this would go to housing associations for use in development projects. Since 2003, in an effort to seek greater value for money, much of the funding by the Housing Corporation for new house building has been channelled to fewer than 80 "developing housing associations" that have achieved "partner status" through Partner Programme Agreements.
Housing associations borrow money to pay for new homes and improvements. After the Housing Act 1988, the proportion of the cost of new homes met by capital grant was scaled back by the Government, so borrowing became the primary source of funding for investment. Much of this was simply borrowed from banks and building societies, but after the late-2000s financial crisis these institutions ceased to offer long-term loans, so developing associations are increasingly turning to corporate bonds to raise funds for expansion.
"The only difference I can make out is that your social landlords have more latitude in drawing up allocations policies... other than that, there is no real difference."
From what I've seen...... a big difference. Maybe just your media misrepresents your 'projects' :/ Standards tend to be better here.
"Some people would happily give up many of their freedoms in exchange for being cared for, and others wouldn't like it at all."
Some people seem to think their freedom can be taken... sorry, but to me that is a big lie. Hence the reference to common law. Inalienable rights like you state your constitution provides... but we don't need to fight and moan.
One guy just sent a 15 page statement to the PM stating he does not stand under any acts or statutes and is therefore operating as a 'free' man of the land and bound by only common law. By that law we are all equal, no one has rights above the other. He was free but made sure the government knew he knew he was free.
But you are bound to not harm, defraud or cause loss or damage to anyone or their property under common law.
(skryť) Pokiaľ Vás zaujal priebeh turnaja, v ktorom práve hráte, môžete ho so svojimi spoluhráčmi komentovať priamo v “Diskusii” pre tento turnaj. (HelenaTanein) (zobraziť všetky tipy)