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.
Except that now states get it too easily, in my opinion. I would suggest the amount given, and the rate at which it's give to be cut back severely. It shouldn't be an automatic part of the federal budget---it's a very special exception.
Quote:
Will people donate all their tax savings to charities to house and care for the poor?
Didn't think so.
Nope...but you might be surprised. I've seen cases where the churches and homeless shelters have been able to step in and help when gov't money was taken out of the picture. The initial thought is that people would starve...but it simply hasn't happened. There was help to be given.
Quote:
So then your federal taxes go down, but your local taxes go up. Where's the bottom-line benefit?
Bottom line is that if it's the local gov't doing it, I don't pay for the idiocy of another community spending my money stupidly. I tend to scrutinize more closely that which is closer to me--and I have a better idea of what and where to spend it.
Nope...but you might be surprised. I've seen cases where the churches and homeless shelters have been able to step in and help when gov't money was taken out of the picture. The initial thought is that people would starve...but it simply hasn't happened. There was help to be given.
Agreed, but there's a limit to how much assistance churches and private nonprofits can offer ... because there's a limit to how much $$ people will donate. The cost of providing those services isn't going to go down much, because the operating costs stay the same, and churches and nonprofits will have to hire people to run the programs previously funded by the federal government (although they'll be paid much less! Trust me on that one ...) Yes, there are volunteers, but not enough to run entire programs.
As for homeless shelters, most of them get some sort of government funding, whether it be HUD or other federal funding passed down to the states or the cities, or state or local funding.
Quote:
Bottom line is that if it's the local gov't doing it, I don't pay for the idiocy of another community spending my money stupidly. I tend to scrutinize more closely that which is closer to me--and I have a better idea of what and where to spend it.
Should the government provide ZERO financial aid in the way of housing shelters for the homeless and low income subsidies for housing?
As in, remove ALL requirements, all across the country, for builders to provide a certain percentage of their apartments for low income housing (federally subsidized by the government) and eliminate section 8 subsidies.
Also, get rid of ALL programs that make sure the homeless are housed during summer heatwaves and winter cold snaps.
What do you think?
I voted for the first one even though I obviously disagree with the hyperbole used in the poll choice.
Charity can take care of it all.
Btw, I had a family member apply for section 8, and there is a 2 year waiting list. Okay, so obviously if a person can make it for 2 years while they wait, why do they need to be on section 8 to begin with?
Should the government provide ZERO financial aid in the way of housing shelters for the homeless and low income subsidies for housing?
As in, remove ALL requirements, all across the country, for builders to provide a certain percentage of their apartments for low income housing (federally subsidized by the government) and eliminate section 8 subsidies.
Also, get rid of ALL programs that make sure the homeless are housed during summer heatwaves and winter cold snaps.
What do you think?
We need more government-subsidized low-income housing, spread out among higher income dwellings. This housing should be paid for by taxpayer dollars and should be rented to poor and low-income people based on their income levels.
The federal government should not have anything to do with public assistance. That is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Also, assistance that actually gives a person their own HOME (section 8 for example) should be abolished. I am 100% for locally run, dormitory style assistance for a limited time (3 months, max) while a person gets on their feet and hunts for a job. More than that, though, is excessive.
Also, people would absolutely provide extra tax money to private charities. People take care of their communities, and as all social programs should be handled at the local level, people would give extra money to their local communities to take care of their neighborhoods and cities.
The federal government should not have anything to do with public assistance. That is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Also, assistance that actually gives a person their own HOME (section 8 for example) should be abolished. I am 100% for locally run, dormitory style assistance for a limited time (3 months, max) while a person gets on their feet and hunts for a job. More than that, though, is excessive.
Where do state and local governments get this money? More often than not, it's from federal government grants. You might as well just streamline it by giving the entire program to the feds.
Quote:
Also, people would absolutely provide extra tax money to private charities. People take care of their communities, and as all social programs should be handled at the local level, people would give extra money to their local communities to take care of their neighborhoods and cities.
Most people couldn't give two (&#^@* about the poor. They'd 'donate' their extra money from tax cuts to yacht manufacturers and stores selling large-screen TVs while their neighbors froze on the streets.
We need more government-subsidized low-income housing, spread out among higher income dwellings. This housing should be paid for by taxpayer dollars and should be rented to poor and low-income people based on their income levels.
If youi want to see some folks raise hell try proposing putting low income housing in an upper income neighborhood.
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.
