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.
Section 8 subsidizes rent only up to the area median and only for apartments appropriate for the household size (so no 3BR apartments for family of two). So if your area median rent is $1000, Section 8 subsidizes only up to $1000. I think disabled, elderly, and working people should be subsidized before able-bodied non-workers.
Another problem with Section 8 --- once the government decides it's going to hand out $1000 checks for apartments for the so-called poor, all the slumlords raise their rents to $1000.
That makes housing unaffordable to those who pay for it themselves. It's just another way the government gets it all wrong. Why some hovel costs $1000 to rent. Meanwhile people working for their living are lucky to find some $800 apartment they can afford.
And since it raises the median rent, Section 8 goes up again, now it's $1200 for the free apartment for the welfare types, and less affordable for those who work.
Another problem with Section 8 --- once the government decides it's going to hand out $1000 checks for apartments for the so-called poor, all the slumlords raise their rents to $1000.
That makes housing unaffordable to those who pay for it themselves. It's just another way the government gets it all wrong. Why some hovel costs $1000 to rent. Meanwhile people working for their living are lucky to find some $800 apartment they can afford.
not completely, a friend I work with gets section 8 from some of his renters, and he still charges only what he has for his apartments. it is never eccessive, it is a fair price.
but the point being, is that IS all welfare. heck, if a man or woman is not paying child support ordered by the court, put their butt in jail until they decide to pay the support.
Again, I am happy for conservatives to go to voters and tell us that the money the government spends to collect child support is welfare.
Please be my guest.
Also your conservative logic is working overtime. In order to get parents to pay child support, yes lock them up so they'll lose their job if they have one to collect child support.
I know for conservatives locking people up makes you feel good inside, but in this case it makes the problem you are attempting to address worse.
Again, I am happy for conservatives to go to voters and tell us that the money the government spends to collect child support is welfare.
Please be my guest.
Also your conservative logic is working overtime. In order to get parents to pay child support, yes lock them up so they'll lose their job if they have one to collect child support.
I know for conservatives locking people up makes you feel good inside, but in this case it makes the problem you are attempting to address worse.
But please believe otherwise.
Part of the thrill of locking people up is because of who owns all those private prisons.
You had your chance to be a welfare king and passed on it. So, enjoy your taxpayer funded retirement and senior benefits. But maybe you could encourage your own kids to get on the welfare gravy train, since it looks so inviting to you.
You just can't understand that most of our retirements have been paid into by us all the way. Yes, the taxpayer funded retirement we get most of our money from is from the State of Kansas and we have paid heavily into it for years. It is not like in Wisconsin and other union states, at all. What we get is based solely on what we paid in. I have paid into Social Security more years than you have been on this Earth but you keep on howling about that one.
Did I say that I wanted to see those welfare numbers to support me or any of my family? I think you must have misread what I said, but then my boys are neither desirous of taking welfare no matter what. They are also not so young as you would have them be.
Who said Pell Grants are welfare? You must be reading a different link, or I missed something. The link says:
Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance. Under the President’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years.
Where are you seeing child support enforcement, pell grants, and earned income credit as welfare?
You don't think that many leaners read these links, do you? One of them spews his crap and the rest take it from there. I do wish some of them would read before they go off half-cocked but that would take some of their time and maybe even be beyond what they could understand.
Conservatives are sick in the head to believe this nonsense.
They are counting PELL grants, public works spending, Head Start, child support enforcement, the Child Tax Credit, Foster Care assistance, housing for old people, and Earned Income Tax Credit all as welfare.
It is a distortion of the language. What is wrong with conservatives that are counting the earned income tax credit which is FOR working families as welfare?
They are counting child support enforcement as welfare. The child tax credit as welfare. Foster care as welfare. These are huge lies.
Well, liberals are sick in the head to believe that increasing the tax rates on millionaires by 2% is a huge step in fixing our economic problems.
Your hair splitting doesn't really refute the point - we're not getting enough return on investment in social spending.
You just can't understand that most of our retirements have been paid into by us all the way. Yes, the taxpayer funded retirement we get most of our money from is from the State of Kansas and we have paid heavily into it for years. It is not like in Wisconsin and other union states, at all. What we get is based solely on what we paid in. I have paid into Social Security more years than you have been on this Earth but you keep on howling about that one.
I'll invite you to read your OP and then contemplate who's howling.
Quote:
Did I say that I wanted to see those welfare numbers to support me or any of my family? I think you must have misread what I said, but then my boys are neither desirous of taking welfare no matter what. They are also not so young as you would have them be.
So, you're saying that they aren't as envious of the welfare lifestyle as you are.
Well, liberals are sick in the head to believe that increasing the tax rates on millionaires by 2% is a huge step in fixing our economic problems.
Your hair splitting doesn't really refute the point - we're not getting enough return on investment in social spending.
Your irrelevant irrational post isn't even interesting.
Again, labeling all government spending except for social security, medicare, and military spending as welfare is a lie and a distortion of the language.
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.
