U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2013, 08:29 PM
 
10,026 posts, read 8,866,089 times
Reputation: 5888

Advertisements

Veterans get some benefits but not most welfare if they are childless. Instead we are spending for the welfare mamas who can't kept their legs closed and welfare daddies who can't keep their pants up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2013, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Yakima WA
3,861 posts, read 4,284,377 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
This is both true and disingenuous at the same time. No, their veteran status doesn't disqualify them for other benefits. However, the safety net for the childless poor is extremely weak in general -- veterans are just like the rest of us who don't believe in having kids outside of marriage -- pay taxes to support the welfare class when you work, if you run into hard times hope you have family or savings that will keep food in your mouth and a roof over your head because the government you've been paying taxes to (instead of potentially saving that money for a rainy day) doesn't care about people who run into hard times because of bad luck.
I did a search on "childless poor" and there seems to be growing awareness that this is the group the system is most stacked against. There is a movement to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to the childless.Even if I'm a conservative I actually agree with the states that expanded Medicaid because all the expansion will be childless, 60% who are men. It's unfair, absolutely horrible for childless to pay taxes (most people with children pay zero, especially single moms) and not get anything out of it.

What's really sick is many childless men wanted to get married and raise childen but women weren't interested in them. They wanted the jerk that turned them into a single mother. So these poor guys get no woman, are expected to pay all the taxes(partially to raise other men's children), and get no safety net in return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 12:45 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,752,909 times
Reputation: 22163
Liberals need to stop believing that the warehousing of people onto welfare handouts is good to do to them. Making and keeping people forever non-productive and useless is about the worst thing to do to them. Working and being productive are what's good for people.

Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to replace these people with cheap foreign workers if their jobs can't be outsourced to China and other cheap labor nations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 06:49 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 5,243,388 times
Reputation: 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Liberals need to stop believing that the warehousing of people onto welfare handouts is good to do to them. Making and keeping people forever non-productive and useless is about the worst thing to do to them. Working and being productive are what's good for people.

Meanwhile Obama is doing all he can to replace these people with cheap foreign workers if their jobs can't be outsourced to China and other cheap labor nations.
I am not saying that at all. There are serious problems with this program. For one, it subsidizes a non-tradable good, housing. I am just saying, thousands of people are going to be put onto the street. If we no longer want to subsidize housing, we should figure out other ways to change that.

In NYC, this will lead to more government spending, since by court order, NYC must provide shelter to anyone seeking it. And that is more expensive than a voucher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 06:50 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 5,243,388 times
Reputation: 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F View Post
Good news. Housing vouchers are unfair to those of us who pay full price for housing. Also many of those low income "families" are actually a unwed mother and her bastard spawn. There are consequences to making poor choices.
It is not like they are getting some great deal the rest of us aren't. We would not want to live in the kind of housing that is being subsidized.

They are still people, and that is still a family. What ever happened to compassion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 08:14 AM
 
Location: NJ
15,936 posts, read 10,979,126 times
Reputation: 10137
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
There is no money to give people vouchers because of sequestration. Get rid of sequestration, and you will not address those long waiting lists, but you can at least make a dent in them.

Well now, let's take another look....it appears federal agency waste is now being hidden by blaming it on sequestration. How about that? The legacy of waste by the feds demonstrates they care not for the people they pretend to help.

", as of the end of March, not one penny of $5.4 billion in HUD money for Superstorm Sandy relief had been spent. And believe it or not, more than $500 million meant for the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still hasn’t been touched – 12 years later."


"The Department of Housing and Urban Development disburses more than $40 billion in taxpayer money a year. Like a lot of federal agencies, HUD took a hit with mandatory budget cuts under sequestration. But even at a time of financial belt-tightening, the agency is facing heat for waste and questionable spending.

***. The agency’s inspector general criticized a program that gave many Louisiana residents $30,000 apiece to prepare their homes for the next hurricane. Twenty-four thousand people spent the money on something else, but no one knows on what.

“We spend three quarters of a billion dollars to pay people to elevate their home that didn’t do it,” McHenry said."



2013
"The Department of Housing and Urban Development is under scrutiny after a Congressional committee finds waste and questionable spending within the department. Sharyl Attkisson reports."


******************************************
" An estimated $138,247 worth of work Housing Services Department employees certified as complete either had not been done or was unacceptable by HUD standards.
* The county grossly overpaid contractors for materials, giving some contractors $455 for bathroom vanity bases when they should have been paid about $60, and $407 for two-piece toilets for which they should have paid about $107.

* The director of Housing Services and other employees involved in administering the programs had work done on their personal properties by some of the same contractors, at a discount in at least one instance.

HUD investigators also found that procurement requirements were not followed, that benefits to low- and moderate-income people were not assured, that rehabilitated rental units were not inspected annually, and that documentation verifying contractors' liability insurance was not obtained."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 09:35 AM
 
5,628 posts, read 2,128,747 times
Reputation: 2935
Sequestration should, in my perfect world of real governing, cut everything in the federal government by a third, just this year, minimum.

And housing vouchers are being chosen because they can generate a better appeal to sympathy attack against budget cutting. CAGW's Pig Book publishes just the easy, nonsense pork to get rid of every year, and it's always bigger than the sequester's planned "reduction in amount of growth."

For proper fiscal management....everyone's sacred ox must be gored. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:19 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 5,243,388 times
Reputation: 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Sequestration should, in my perfect world of real governing, cut everything in the federal government by a third, just this year, minimum.

And housing vouchers are being chosen because they can generate a better appeal to sympathy attack against budget cutting. CAGW's Pig Book publishes just the easy, nonsense pork to get rid of every year, and it's always bigger than the sequester's planned "reduction in amount of growth."

For proper fiscal management....everyone's sacred ox must be gored. Period.
Sequestration is not a reduction in amount of growth for the voucher program. There are already fewer vouchers than at this point in 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Yakima WA
3,861 posts, read 4,284,377 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
It is not like they are getting some great deal the rest of us aren't. We would not want to live in the kind of housing that is being subsidized.

They are still people, and that is still a family. What ever happened to compassion?
Yes they are getting a great deal. They are paying less for housing than market value. Sure the liberal elite would never want to (and never have to) live in places like that but ask the men at the homeless shelter and they would be thankful to have a roof over their head. As long as these programs are biased against the childless not only do i have no compassion when they are cut, I am filled with joy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2013, 10:47 AM
 
9,965 posts, read 11,828,811 times
Reputation: 13286
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Moral of story:

Having kids you can't adequately support leaves you at the mercy of government and charity, which is dangerous for your kids and generally a bad idea.
Yep.

Government should not be involved in charity work and that is what this is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top