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 08-09-2019, 02:53 PM
 
7,740 posts, read 4,431,991 times
Reputation: 10069

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FC76-81 View Post
For those who are poor because they just got out of prison for criminal behavior...I have none.
That just sets them up for repeat behavior. They pay their debt to society. Get out. Can't get a job or housing due to their conviction. Have to pay for their own monitoring. Not a recipe for success.

Either we put people in prison to reform them and consider them so when they are out or we may as well make every crime punished by the death penalty.

But the for-profit prison system is happy to keep things as they are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2019, 02:58 PM
 
3,000 posts, read 974,853 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by aileesic View Post
Somewhere around $700-1000 a month figure is adequate (depends on where you live) if paired with housing, food, and medical assistance. A disabled person living by themselves and no other obligations can live just fine on that amount.
Maybe in the middle of no where. Bay Area of San Fransicko rent for a 1 bedroom is anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month (depending on location and how new the building is). And that's just for rent only, no utilities such as PG&E. For $700-$1000, they would have to move to somewhere where there is absolutely nothing (middle of the desert, etc.) places where there are no jobs, etc. And I've heard from some that New York is more expensive in most parts.

I know a guy who owns an apartment building and half his tenants are section 8. He makes a killing from the government. They (government) pay up to $3,000 a month for a homeless couple to live in an apartment at his building. Most of his section 8's are long term drug users who are now 45 years in age and older. They got some serious health issues that goes along with that type of lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,759 posts, read 2,762,277 times
Reputation: 6982
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim View Post
It all depends.

But I can tell you that I am ALOT LESS sympathetic after working for the system that provides for the poor some years back.

I can't tell you how many times I have been told "Why would i work? I'll get less money from the government than the money I would be making if I worked."
There are cheats in all things and that is not a reason to not do something that is otherwise a good thing to do. The debate should be on whether welfare is a good thing for our society, and if it is, then figure out how to stop abuse of the system.

We are one of the richest countries in the world and have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, I believe. Welfare is part of that but probably a bigger part of it is a system that fosters opportunity for everyone to work and to not get into a situation where they need welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:25 PM
 
807 posts, read 147,112 times
Reputation: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by FC76-81 View Post
Maybe in the middle of no where. Bay Area of San Fransicko rent for a 1 bedroom is anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month (depending on location and how new the building is). And that's just for rent only, no utilities such as PG&E. For $700-$1000, they would have to move to somewhere where there is absolutely nothing (middle of the desert, etc.) places where there are no jobs, etc. And I've heard from some that New York is more expensive in most parts.

I know a guy who owns an apartment building and half his tenants are section 8. He makes a killing from the government. They (government) pay up to $3,000 a month for a homeless couple to live in an apartment at his building. Most of his section 8's are long term drug users who are now 45 years in age and older. They got some serious health issues that goes along with that type of lifestyle.

Okay, but their health problems are not his problem. He is collecting rent and in turn providing a place for them to stay. Paying whatever they must pay in rent with assistance is far better than them being on streets. They've probably got a bed to sleep on and a few other pieces of furniture, maybe a tv, fridge, stove to cook on. Hopefully they don't own any cars and make it a habit to take public transportation. That is plenty. Poor people should live modest lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:29 PM
 
3,000 posts, read 974,853 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
That just sets them up for repeat behavior. They pay their debt to society. Get out. Can't get a job or housing due to their conviction. Have to pay for their own monitoring. Not a recipe for success.

Either we put people in prison to reform them and consider them so when they are out or we may as well make every crime punished by the death penalty.

But the for-profit prison system is happy to keep things as they are.
They can get a job, if they try. They first go through a halfway house program to work themselves back into society and get a job. Remember what Beretta used to say...."Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". And the time for the crime doesn't necessarily end when they get out of prison.

Last edited by FC76-81; 08-09-2019 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:31 PM
 
7,350 posts, read 1,611,961 times
Reputation: 17925
Thank you for all the responses!

I have nothing more to add personally, but I am certainly appreciating all the different responses!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:42 PM
 
2,222 posts, read 945,875 times
Reputation: 5446
I'd gladly donate another 5% if it solved the problem. I don't think sympathy or empathy is the issue. Those are just mental constructs in your own head, that don't actually help anyone. I'm in favor of welfare for the poor and open borders for immigrants, legal or not. I think everyone should have a subsistence level of help provided by the government and financed by tax dollars. I think that most charities and religions are just businesses, and very little trickles down to the people who actually need help, so I do think the government should help the people who live here in the US. I'd rather support poor people with my taxes than the military industrial complex, welfare for corporations that don't pay taxes, billionaire tax loopholes, etc. But the poor will always be last since they don't have the clout that the powerful and wealthy do. They make the laws to benefit themselves first and foremost. I don't feel sorry for poor people as that does neither them or me any good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katharsis View Post
This question is the result of the current thread about the elderly couple's murder-suicide due to their inability to pay their medical bills (and possibly also due to the wife's health problems). One person was courageous (or foolish) enough to imply that he had absolutely no sympathy for them. That led me to wonder how many people would be willing to let the poor die if doing otherwise would put an additional financial burden on them.

So, in order to put some kind of number on it --

What percentage of your income would you be willing to "donate" through an additional tax deduction to help support those U.S. citizens who cannot support themselves? (Just to take the issue of illegal immigration out of the question.)

My answer would be either 0.5% or 1%.

However, my first choice would be to completely overhaul the U.S. healthcare and "welfare" system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:42 PM
 
24,940 posts, read 12,268,431 times
Reputation: 10672
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Really?

So if you were born disabled, could never work, or perhaps were involved in a car accident as a child and became permanently disabled, you can get a maximum of $700 a month. Do you really think that is adequate and plenty?

If you bring up section 8 housing and how luxurious it is, lets remember that you are far from guaranteed that and in addition could wait ten years or more to be accepted.
Thatís what family is for, not the village.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Seattle
1,477 posts, read 316,049 times
Reputation: 1467
My belief is that true charity does not come with a tax deduction. I never report mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2019, 03:54 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
5,605 posts, read 5,781,735 times
Reputation: 3581
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
There are cheats in all things and that is not a reason to not do something that is otherwise a good thing to do. The debate should be on whether welfare is a good thing for our society, and if it is, then figure out how to stop abuse of the system.

We are one of the richest countries in the world and have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, I believe. Welfare is part of that but probably a bigger part of it is a system that fosters opportunity for everyone to work and to not get into a situation where they need welfare.
Stating that there are "cheats in all things" is just a way of minimizing the problem. It's a problem and it needs to be dealt with. And the debate about "whether welfare is good for our society" is nothing new.

That being said, we do not have a "moral obligation" to help anyone. You sound just like some of my old cases--they really do believe someone owes them something, as opposed having to earn it for themselves. We give out compassion and empathy, but we are under no obligation to do so. Any help someone that someone receives from the greater society should bringabout some degree of gratefullness. If you want to give--then give as much as you like, but please don't attempt to tell someone else what their morals should be.



That being said, I'm fine with people who are truly needy receiving welfare (ie. the mentally ill, physically handicapped, the elderly and the occasional "shyt out of luck" person." Outside of that? Nope.

Last edited by itshim; 08-09-2019 at 04:09 PM..
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

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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