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.
I didn't even know he was HUD secretary under trump. Just heard something on the news about
HUD buildings being sold off to developers, for trump's world. Who else's benefit? Something like that.
Anyone add to this.
Trump is more a scumbag than ever. This is still so hard to believe.
People making a comfortable living on the tax payers' dime have no incentive to improve themselves and find a job. Seriously. If people have the choice to go to a job everyday, or never have to work again, and have the same lifestyle in both cases, which do you think they'll choose?
I don't think subsidized housing should be that fancy, just adequate. If it's housing for the elderly, that's different because they have worked and are now retired. If an elderly person needs subsidized housing, it's usually because of an illness that prevented them from working enough, a divorce too late in their working life for them to be able to earn the money back, or some misfortune such as theft or other occurrence that wasn't their fault. They deserve to enjoy their retirement in decent--maybe not extra fancy--but decent housing.
But for younger people who are on welfare, it should be just adequate. No washers and dryers or dishwashers in the apartments, just a safe and fairly comfortable place to live until they can get a job and get out. If they're able bodied and working age, they shouldn't have to be there for very long.
That said, the whole welfare system needs reforming so that people can transition off welfare, not just start working at an entry level job that would cause them to lose their housing and health insurance. It needs to be gradual. Let some financial assistance continue until they are on their feet and making enough money to support their family. Don't cut them off suddenly or else there is no incentive to even get a job.
I am all for it. In fact, pull out those FEMA trailers that are sitting unused and paid for so people can have a temporary place to live. More incentive to get on with your own life. The taxpayers don't need to provide TVs.
It's not fancy, but livable..more comfortable than the streets.
Everyone says get a job, like jobs are a dime a dozen. College grads have tough times
snagging jobs.
Suppose they could line up for the ag fields like the migrant workers do..but it's hard to live on that living too. Plus americans don't want to pick lettuce and tomatoes.
this is a trick statement, what carson say was : dont make government provided housing too comfortable for the poor. he was the poor to better themselves and move on, instead of being the stray dog that you feed and hangs around all day
It's not fancy, but livable..more comfortable than the streets.
Everyone says get a job, like jobs are a dime a dozen. College grads have tough times
snagging jobs.
Suppose they could line up for the ag fields like the migrant workers do..but it's hard to live on that living too. Plus americans don't want to pick lettuce and tomatoes.
If you don't have skills to do anything else, then you can't afford to be picky about what you don't want to do.
I agree with him - I just think we need to do something to get these people to a place where they're employable.
But keeping people unskilled and on welfare is guaranteeing them a life of poverty.
Poor people shouldn't live lavishly. What's the issue here?
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.