Trump proposes end to heating aid for low-income Americans (unemployed, Congress, global warming)
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.
You sending them to my state, Fl? Some of these northen states are brutal - I was raised in PA. Could not pay me enough to live there.
Potentially some, yes, but more likely just to smaller places locally. Whatever people want and can afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
I like how people find these isolated examples of ONE person who scammed the system. How about all the other people, elderly, living alone on a fixed income who can't afford the heating bill?
So what is an 80 year old woman supposed to do for a living? Get a job shoveling snow.
Someone wanting to stay in the house they've lived in for decades is very understandable. It's also very wasteful. One or two people living in a home that could house three or four. If they want to pay for it, cool. If their kids want to pay for it, cool. Asking society at large to subsidize their keeping empty bedrooms, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
HEAP program opens up in November and runs through spring or until funding is gone. Thus if someone finds themselves in an emergency situation in middle of winter they can apply for funds and thus not incur a huge bill.
You are also forgetting that those bills do not or will not go away just because heating season is over, a person moves, or whatever. Utility companies can and will turn accounts over to collections and or otherwise work to get their money. Oh and in the meantime once you are cut off forget about restoration of service until or unless a major portion of past due amount (if not whole) is paid. Most companies will also require a deposit going forward against future past due bills.
In any event you want to avoid tragic situations such as this:
Yes, they will have to pay those bills eventually or default like you would on any other debt. Delaying bills till end of winter is a good policy, even if some of those will fail to be collected and that will result in slightly higher utility rates when they pass on the bad debt to consumers. Writing them off is a taxpayer funded hand out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
If some of you rich Republicans who enjoy seeing this sort of thing ever falls upon bad luck and needs help, maybe you'll see what it's like when every safety net is gone
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
There but for the grace of God go I.
Oh come on now. This is not true of our welfare and social support system. Not now, and not for longer than I've been alive. A responsible person would be much better protected from shock events by having lower taxes and using the money to build up savings and buy long term disability insurance than they would be by paying into a system which offers about nil to people who don't have children out of wedlock until they spend down their assets. Arguments to the middle class to support social transfers as a form of insurance are ineffective at best and disingenuous at worst because our system of social transfers aren't effective or efficient as insurance.
Good for you for quitting .... why is it on the taxpayer to increase landlord property values in this manner?
Because every program with good intensions get abused as there is no oversight just $$$$$$ Same reason welfare outreach workers search for large caseloads even if they have to lie.Job security! It's human nature.
I spend $ 300 a month on AC without any government aid. If I paid taxes I wouldn't want them going to pay someone's heating bill. I'd rather send the extra heat I have through the mail directly to someone I chose.
I'd be curious as to why you don't pay taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland
And, yes, there are weatherization programs for the very poor. If they own the house, they might get insulation. That will save money in the long run and the person would never have been able to afford it.
Maybe the person won't need fuel assistance anymore, or, if they do, they won't need much. So it would save government money even if they do still need some help.
If the poor person is living in a rental property, the weatherization assistance helps the property owner too as it improves the value of his housing.
That's actually a good alternative, and it's helpful to look at alternate policies that still helps to address the problem, but do so in a smarter way for the homeowner/renter and the taxpayer, rather than simply doing away with a safety net for people in need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
I hope the voters remember this.
Citing fraud for cutting the budget is an excuse, not a reason. Any excuse will do in a pinch.
Firstly, they don't give a damn about people and don't empathize with the common people and their problems. They haven't suffered, and they can't relate.
Secondly, they don't give a damn about people and assume the worst about the character and motivations of people who apply for this type of assistance. They assume these are lazy and/or dishonest people when in fact they are good family, friends and neighbors in need, swallowing their pride to ask for assistance. If these individuals in Trump's staff moved in the circles of real working people they would know this.
Thirdly they just don't give a damn about people.
They have to make sure there's plenty of money for war mongering and paying off the military contractors to entangle ourselves in other nations' affairs, rather than our own.
Again ONE bad example. For every bad example there must be hundreds of good examples. Landlords who did NOT kick the tenant out and from then on the tenant didn't need fuel assistance or only needed a little bit to get them through.
And if those tenants left after a few years, the new tenants wouldn't need fuel assistance or at least not much. All because the house had been winterized. Think LONG TERM benefit to weatherization.
Where does the landlord's responsibility come in? It's their property.
If I added a full bathroom to my downstairs it would increase my property value. But why would it be the government's job to pay for it?
Potentially some, yes, but more likely just to smaller places locally. Whatever people want and can afford.
Someone wanting to stay in the house they've lived in for decades is very understandable. It's also very wasteful. One or two people living in a home that could house three or four. If they want to pay for it, cool. If their kids want to pay for it, cool. Asking society at large to subsidize their keeping empty bedrooms, not so much.
Yes, they will have to pay those bills eventually or default like you would on any other debt. Delaying bills till end of winter is a good policy, even if some of those will fail to be collected and that will result in slightly higher utility rates when they pass on the bad debt to consumers. Writing them off is a taxpayer funded hand out.
Oh come on now. This is not true of our welfare and social support system. Not now, and not for longer than I've been alive. A responsible person would be much better protected from shock events by having lower taxes and using the money to build up savings and buy long term disability insurance than they would be by paying into a system which offers about nil to people who don't have children out of wedlock until they spend down their assets. Arguments to the middle class to support social transfers as a form of insurance are ineffective at best and disingenuous at worst because our system of social transfers aren't effective or efficient as insurance.
A responsible elderly person who has worked their entire lives but got screwed over by job loss or a health crisis is not going to be helped at all by a tax cut. You know that.
And, as for elderly poor living in big houses, most do not. They live in rental apartments or small houses. People downsize when they retire=getting rid of things and finding a smaller home.
Even if someone did live in a big house, they are smart enough to close off rooms that they are not using to save on heating.
Again, citing one example as an excuse for ending a program that helps people who are poor through no fault of their own. I'm all for getting rid of scammers but we should not literally leave people out in the cold.
A responsible elderly person who has worked their entire lives but got screwed over by job loss or a health crisis is not going to be helped at all by a tax cut. You know that.
And, as for elderly poor living in big houses, most do not. They live in rental apartments or small houses. People downsize when they retire=getting rid of things and finding a smaller home.
Even if someone did live in a big house, they are smart enough to close off rooms that they are not using to save on heating.
Again, citing one example as an excuse for ending a program that helps people who are poor through no fault of their own. I'm all for getting rid of scammers but we should not literally leave people out in the cold.
The tax example was in response to the general notion that the welfare system as a whole is an effective safety net and the middle class should support it as such -- most of the money does not go to protect against shock events, and when shock events do occur it offers very little support (went through a period of unemployment, so speaking from experience).
Most apartments in the northeast have heating baked into the rent. When it isn't, it's not that bad. Again, speaking from experience. My parents' utility bill for a large, standalone house on the other hand is pretty big. When they retire they'll cover it or if something should happen and they couldn't and they don't want to move I would for them -- but I'm their kid, not some random person being coerced by the government and possibly struggling to afford a big enough house to hold their own family.
If someone has already downsized to an apartment social security should be more than enough to cover it. If they haven't, no it isn't their fault they can't afford to maintain the empty rooms anymore but still taxpayer shouldn't subsidize the highly inefficient housing use.
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.
