Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In an earlier thread I started, What If We Demolished all the Projects?, the argument seemed to shift to a discussion about what those who live in low-income housing projects were "owed", if anything.
I believe that when welfare was first started it was envisioned as a temporary help to get people past hard times and back on their feet.
Today many allege that part of the failure of liberalism was the assumption that people would gratefully accept assistance and quickly move to improve themselves.
Certainly some poor people strive to better themselves and get out of public housing; but others just accept the lousy conditions and pass this passive acceptance on to their kids, as if being on the public dole was a right.
Is it a right, or a privilege?
SobroGuy asserted that in NYC, once you qualify for public housing, the city owes it to you for life. Incredible!
On the other hand, Kefir King says that those who live in the projects are "demeaned" and therefor are owed still more from the taxpayers, to make their lives less stressful.
The general consensus is that living in NYCHA should be temporary, until you pull yourself up by the bootstraps and improve your life situation so that you won't need the subsidy anymore. But here's what people fail to realize:
SOME PEOPLE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN LIFE.
SOME PEOPLE WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN LIFE.
Once everybody accepts this fact and moves on this topic will be put to rest.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
As for a morality in accepting public money, yes there is a scourge that goes with the handout as liong as the handout is to the poor. But heck, remember that some of the largest corporations in America and ALL of its INDEPENDENT, COMSERVATIVE farmers are on the dole, the farmers for almost 100 years now.
THEY feel it's a matter of right, so why should the poor schlub getting a hundred a week and some food stamps (whose money ultimately goes to corporations and farmers) feel "immoral."
As for a morality in accepting public money, yes there is a scourge that goes with the handout as liong as the handout is to the poor. But heck, remember that some of the largest corporations in America and ALL of its INDEPENDENT, COMSERVATIVE farmers are on the dole, the farmers for almost 100 years now.
THEY feel it's a matter of right, so why should the poor schlub getting a hundred a week and some food stamps (whose money ultimately goes to corporations and farmers) feel "immoral."
Yeah why is it ok for Goldman Sachs to get a billion dollar bailout and it's not ok for Latoya to get her apartment. Double standard much? Banks **** us over but they can get helped out.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Yeah why is it ok for Goldman Sachs to get a billion dollar bailout and it's not ok for Latoya to get her apartment. Double standard much? Banks **** us over but they can get helped out.
As for a morality in accepting public money, yes there is a scourge that goes with the handout as liong as the handout is to the poor. But heck, remember that some of the largest corporations in America and ALL of its INDEPENDENT, COMSERVATIVE farmers are on the dole, the farmers for almost 100 years now.
THEY feel it's a matter of right, so why should the poor schlub getting a hundred a week and some food stamps (whose money ultimately goes to corporations and farmers) feel "immoral."
Because the banks are more important. They are an integral part of our economy and if they failed there would be economic chaos
Latoya is a leech of society, contibuting nothing more than mouths to feed. If she died no one would care..not even her half dozen baby daddies
I agree. Latoya is expendable. Besides, all the bank hand outs were paid back with INTEREST! So the govt made a profit while at the same time saving the economy from these banks failing.
Aha, so THAT'S the criteria: WORKERS get public money. Where exactly do non-farm workers line up for this money? Where is the dishwashers' subsidy line? The burger flippers' subsidy window?
As for the working farmer...the subsidy is paid based on farm OWNERSHIP.
[LEFT]On average, the payments amounted to $17,172 per subsidized farm. The range
was from a low of $3,401 per subsidized farm in West Virginia to a high of $90,214
per subsidized farm in California. Farm operators received an average of $9,251[/LEFT]
each and landlords received an average of $5,617 each.
Last edited by Kefir King; 07-29-2012 at 08:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
