Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: Move Welfare recipients to low-COL areas?
Yes 10 30.30%
No 23 69.70%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2019, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,641,969 times
Reputation: 9676

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wallbuilder View Post
One of the craziest things I find about Welfare (and yes, I'm including things like Social Security in this category) is that so many of the recipients live in expensive areas. For example, why are there government housing projects in places like San Francisco? That's valuable real estate, where a studio apartment costs $3,000+/month. The same living situation would cost $100/month in the middle of Oklahoma.
I don't think so. In my town close to the middle of Oklahoma, it would be kinda hard to find a one bedroom apartment for $300 a month. As for Oklahoma City, this page suggests $320 for the cheapest studio apartment. https://www.apartmenthomeliving.com/...for-rent/cheap

Considering how much Oklahomans, especially Republicans, look down upon the poor, I don't think most Oklahomans would go along with such a proposal to move the poor there just because the COL is low.

Last edited by StillwaterTownie; 09-27-2019 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2019, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,641,969 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Abolishing socialism should shave 80% off the federal budget. Possibly more.
I doubt the churches would want to be overwhelmed by most of the demand for welfare shifting to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2019, 04:30 PM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,401,741 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Resettlement? What a very Soviet idea.
How is it a Soviet idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2019, 04:51 PM
 
34,059 posts, read 17,081,326 times
Reputation: 17213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
Or just get rid of welfare.
It should have eligibility like unemployment insurance, substituting recipients of any sw should have to have worked and paid, at minimum, a net federal income tax equal to, at minimum, ten years worth of sw they can receive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2019, 04:54 PM
 
7,343 posts, read 4,370,223 times
Reputation: 7659
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Abolishing socialism should shave 80% off the federal budget. Possibly more.
You're just transferring the money to orphanages and prisons. It would cost far more, unfortunately.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2019, 05:58 PM
 
45,227 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
How is it a Soviet idea?
You could always do some self study. It will be our secret.

Last edited by Frank DeForrest; 09-27-2019 at 06:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2019, 06:16 PM
 
45,227 posts, read 26,450,499 times
Reputation: 24985
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960 View Post
It should have eligibility like unemployment insurance, substituting recipients of any sw should have to have worked and paid, at minimum, a net federal income tax equal to, at minimum, ten years worth of sw they can receive.
illustrating perfectly how GOP'ers know just the right amounts of welfare and socialism


Here is my litmus test for the legitimacy of such schemes- I ask myself; can I as a person do it? If the answer is no, than neither can the state.

For example: can I rob my neighbors and donate some of the proceeds to someone in need so long as they meet some made up criteria for worthiness? No, it would still be robbery.
Tell us how a govt ID badge changes changes it from robbery to "welfare"
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top