"A panhandler satirizes real estate marketing" (http://isaac.blogs.com/isaac_laquedem/2006/11/a_panhandler_sa.html)

I would instead start ranting:

See, DHS' Family Service Manual
Click the link "11. Counting Client Assets"

Now try to apply the same criteria to any private partner in any public-private venture such as "landlord subsidies" that have been mislabeled affordable housing so that a deal can pencil out.

I get too fired up at the inconsistencies as here with SoWhat -and- What'sNext? (Name That Scam Contest).

Maybe I just need a good catch phrase.

My link links to a post in the Denver Post where a parole "bought three houses at inflated prices in Arapahoe County with the help of lenders who put up the entire $1.9 million"

Then "[a]fter he was caught and jailed, he managed to buy two more."

If you can't beat them, join them.

Surely the real criminals will try to make it a crime to mock their crime, or crash their party.

Maybe his sign was designed to draw attention to his resume, while demonstrating good guerrilla marketing skills.

Perhaps the panhandler could try and get one of the proposed 125 percent loans in the UK (designed to perpetuate speculation, I speculate) and then he too could drive around in an SUV -- for a while anyway. (The 125 percent deals have apparently crossed the pond.)

When the bankers ultimately plead their case that their assets (mortgage backed promises to pay money) are not as valuable as once thought will we have the courage to point then too to the DHS criteria noted above? (I think we need an anti-deficiency judgment law here, to limit the number of prospective panhandler candidates.)

And then I would try to hit back with a Public Records request like this one. To which Multnomah County would retort with a conclusory answer "Your request for a fee waiver is denied because there is not a
sufficient showing that the request will primarily serve the public
interest."

Granting my request for a waiver of the cost to duplicate a CD that already exists would take less time, money and effort than that which I invested in writing this here post.

UPDATE Friday 11:18 AM

Perhaps I should add that I recently refused to list a property where the seller offered to give me HELP by way of a piece of the commission that they must have thought was mandatory. I offered instead advice that they need only find their own buyer, as they were already doing on their own, and to go through the escrow process . . . where the buyer and lender-appraiser cabal would assure that the rest of the process gets addressed. I certainly did not need to add fuel to the expectation that a high price could/should be demanded. (He could find any broker he wants too, just not me. For I tend to think of today's prices are way out of whack with a proper equilibrium that factors in median private sector wages.) I have to maintain my license not just to make money but to avoid complications the would result from offering real estate suggestions while not-licensed -- like answering truthfully in any renewal or reactivation whether I had or had not engaged in conduct that only licensed folks can engage in. I have to pay to offer advice for free. Nobody would dare take my picture and hoist me up to the limelight as though it were either public service or pity. Pity makes me sick. Personal integrity sometimes comes at a very high price, in a lost opportunity cost.

I tend to derive more pleasure from badgering the bar.