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.
CA pays more money to Uncle Sam than they get back. They've been subsidizing the red states for a long time. So yeah, CA would welcome this talk.
.
Baloney. No State pays more than they get back. If that was the case we wouldn't have trillion dollar deficits year after year. I am guessing you are using a very narrow definition of federal money flowing to CA. Do you dial in the military spending, payrolls and benefits for federal employees, upkeep of federal properties, Etc. Etc?
Keep in mind that behind all the glitz and glamor of the city, the bankers, the software engineers, there is an entire underclass of people who keep the city running who make relatively low wages. They have to live somewhere, and that is the purpose of these housing vouchers.
Keep in mind that behind all the glitz and glamor of the city, the bankers, the software engineers, there is an entire underclass of people who keep the city running who make relatively low wages. They have to live somewhere, and that is the purpose of these housing vouchers.
So a family in nebraska should be made poorer to keep the glitz going?
Sounds like its the responsibility of those who want the glitz and glamor to pick the check
CA pays more money to Uncle Sam than they get back. They've been subsidizing the red states for a long time. So yeah, CA would welcome this talk.
.
CA gets back $.99 for every $1.00 it sends in. That $.01 "more money" is going to be gone soon and they will be joining the ranks of those welfare red states.
$4,000 a month for a three bedroom unit in a place like San Francisco is very typical. Some would even consider that a bargain.
It is grossly IGNORANT and MISINFORMED by saying that the vouchers are driving up rent. It is because the region is very affluent and housing is limited, not because of government.
.
$4,000/month is typical for a 1 bedroom in SF. The average for a 2 bed is $4,500+. The north bay will be more affordable but with so many looking for housing and thousands of units burned to the ground it may increase prices.
They shouldn't be offering housing assistance in any high demand, high price real estate markets. Make them move to flyover country. There are lots of people in flyover country who would love to live out there but could not afford it. They shouldn't get to live there just because they were born there.
There should not be section 8 in Hawaii. Make them leave.
If the states want to do it themselves without federal help via higher taxes, I'd have no problem with that. Let the Hollywood liberals carry the burden for their wanting to help everyone, I'll selfishly help nobody and take the survival of the fittest mentality.
$4,000 a month for a three bedroom unit in a place like San Francisco is very typical. Some would even consider that a bargain.
It is grossly IGNORANT and MISINFORMED by saying that the vouchers are driving up rent. It is because the region is very affluent and housing is limited, not because of government.
.
Just a quick question, should I be able to live in Beverly Hills using HUD subsidies?
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.
