DeBlasio Quietly Ramps Up Massive Rent Welfare Program (New York, York: school, college)
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.
It's called SCRIE, "Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption". Basically if someone is over 62 in a rent stabilized apartment, NYC will eat the annual increase until death at taxpayer's expense. Quick back of the envelope calculation, there are 1 million rent stabilized apartments in NYC, with about 23% rented by seniors, and an average rent of $1200.
If we assume 1.5% annual increase, taxpayers will be on the hook for $50,000,000 in new welfare obligations for year 1, compounding annually and essentially permanent since as seniors die off more younger tenants become eligible at 62.
Must be nice to have everyone else's money to throw around!! (especially those stuck paying market rents)
Although I disapprove of your implicit stance that elderly renters should be gouged by greedy landlords (it sounds as if you mostly object because you can't reap the benefits), I can't help chuckling at future dismay when those people end up living another 30 years.
That's just a completely illogical statement - as soon as someone gets public assistance their situation BECOMES everyone's business. I have absolutely no problem with welfare as a safety net to help someone get on their feet, for a year or two, but then sorry you should be on your own. Some people obviously cannot take care of themselves, such as the mentally ill or severely physically disabled, makes sense that they end up being a public charge if family cannot support them. But for able-bodied adults, welfare as dependence is just criminal and should be abolished just like a lot of what Bill Clinton did with his welfare reform several years ago
So your basically saying welfare recipients have no right to privacy? You make no fu**in sense
Now see there you're wrong. It becomes "anyone's business" when whatever situation causes people to seek out taxpayer funded benefits. Same as when your kids or a family member comes to you for a touch; normally their personal business is just that, but when asking someone else for money then all bets are off.
Again no one said they had any problems with the odd and temporary one off situation. But when it has been a way of life, and or there just doesn't seem to be a steady plan to dig themselves out of that hole, that is when you've got to keep your wallet closed and say "no".
Again we all know or have known people whose lives go from one hot mess to another. They're always on the scrounge and or otherwise seemingly incapable of supporting themselves, and or their families. The daughter, niece or whoever everyone warned *NOT* to become a single mother/get involved with some worthless bum. Guy who lives way above his head but won't take warnings that things need to change otherwise disaster is bound to happen.
These people always have some story or dream that light is at the end of tunnel, and that may very well be but sometimes that light is an oncoming train.
No. Just because someone is receiving public assistance, doesn’t give you the right for you to know their business. Then they deserve to know how much money you’re pulling in.
Again, You don’t know anything about a persons situation to make any kind of determination about them. This is a problem that a lot of people seem to have
Some of you have a false sense of entitlement which morally makes no sense. Shows your lack of home training
No. Just because someone is receiving public assistance, doesn’t give you the right for you to know their business. Then they deserve to know how much money you’re pulling in.
Again, You don’t know anything about a persons situation to make any kind of determination about them. This is a problem that a lot of people seem to have
Some of you have a false sense of entitlement which morally makes no sense. Shows your lack of home training
First of all let's not start going on about "home training". I know a lot more big words than you do.
Two since you're on the subject *I* was brought up not to want what haven't got, and to be self reliant. My parents (like rest of my family and others I grew up with) were big on saving. First Holy Communion, birthdays, confirmation, graduations, jobs, etc... money went to the bank. Yeah you could take a bit off the top now and then, but the rest was deposited.
I was also taught that choices have consequences and repercussions. Get some girl in family way and your life is officially busted.
Oh and the other standard stuff, stay in and get good grades in school, go to college and or pursue a career, etc....
No one said anything about *not* lending a hand to someone who has earned all their lives and suddenly finds themselves needing a bit of *TEMPOARY* help. This obviously excludes mentally and or physically ill along with disabled people.
OTOH if you've reached 35 or so years of age and cannot take on the role of a grown a$4ed man or woman, which includes providing for yourself and or family, then something is wrong.
I came up in the 1970's which was *NOT* a great time economically for many New Yorkers. My dad had decent enough job, but he took on side work as did many of my uncles and other grown men I knew. They would have rather worked all the hours in a day than have their family take charity or a handout.
You cannot paint everyone who has long term assistance under the same brush without knowing what their individual situation is, which quite frankly is none of anyone’s business
If you are applying for or on government assistance for your individual situation, then what you do should be the government’s business as it needs to have some ability to check on whether you need such assistance and how best to have you on a track that allows you to survive and hopefully thrive without such. It’s okay if that data gets anonymized a bit when making it available to the public, but it definitely needs to be collected and rightfully attributed within the programs and agencies that manage the programs.
I don’t have an issue with the general idea of promoting a government assistance program to those who would qualify for such and need them. That’s the whole damn point in the first place. My problems are generally with whether the solution we use is sufficiently good, sufficiently effective, and properly budgeted.
Again we're talking about not just cash received but sum total value of all "welfare" payments.
Direct cash benefits were reduced and or eliminated due to various reforms meant to deal with abuses of system. However money still flows but is attached to vouchers and other spending both direct and indirect.
Excerpt: tell us about the time you saw a welfare recipient ordering a lobster dinner. " If you only knew..........."
Opinion:
Many young people ignore the aged.
Old Tibetan saying:
Bring closer to you that which frightens you most!
Learn it Live it.....................
What’s wrong with a lobster dinner?
That just shows a person goes out to a restaurant once in awhile. No big deal.
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.
