Ben Carson’s proposal to triple rents for the poorest could hurt single mothers the most

a reply to: Khaleesi

what happened to the reservations? that's where alot of people in ny used to get them?

a reply to: dawnstar

If you don't live near a reservation you have to buy local. I used to live in NC. The reservation was a 4 hour drive one way. Driving 300 miles for cigs is kinda extreme.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This is NOT raising the rent on people...lol

It's reducing the amount of their rent paid by the tax payer...

Man I wish someone would pay my mortgage for ME...

Jaden

originally posted by: Vector99
You are bul#ting so much right now I'm looking for a matador.

I make an extra $150-200 a month due to tax reform, and it's crumbs...but now apparently $150 a month is a lot of money?!?

Sigh...

The difference in value has a lot to do with how much you're making. A 1% change is much less impactful than a 15% change, even when the amount of money in both cases is the same.

a reply to: Aazadan

So let me get this straight, $100 a month is a lot of money when it's convenient for your argument, but $100 a month isn't a lot of money when it's convenient for your argument?

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Well, cutting spending on parts of the MIC which are not manpower related, sure. Getting rid of the funding for proxy armies and opening up the security services in such a way as they could never hide such an activity in the future, would be a GREAT start.

And as for increasing public spending to boost the economy, I agree with you.

The only thing that could ever correct that problem, is ensuring that the people working at ground level, are getting a greater share of the total pay package from any given company or entity, than they typically have previously, without the cost of the product or work they do passing on to the consumer. That would tip the scales back in favour of the working majority, place buying power in more hands than is currently the case, and thereby improve the strength of the economy, by making sure that the responsibility to purchase goods and services, is held by as many hands as possible, not as few as the top tier can get away with.

Not really. While I do agree with you in principal, the main thing you're missing is that the military in the US is a giant welfare program. Most of it consists of paying soldiers to sit around and BS all day. Well over 50% of our armed forces could be kicked out of service and it wouldn't hurt the US one bit. Then there's the issues such as over producing equipment just to direct defense funds into various congressional districts.

If we were to cut off all of this funding, we would add 700,000 people with no actual job skills beyond handling a gun to the unemployment roster. And most of those 700,000 also have families that would now find themselves homeless since base housing would go away.

Our military is a giant waste of money, but it's also the largest aspect of the welfare state and we can't simply remove it without causing a lot of harm.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
So far all it's done is create a class of women who don't need a relationship with a man to help with the bills.

What's so bad about that? Are you scared of women being independent? Why should a woman be forced to be in a relationship with you because she needs food and shelter?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Maybe I should be looking into HUD for myself?

HUD operates on a points system, different things like the number of children (a very big multiplier), employment status, disability, and so on add points to you. When a voucher slot becomes available the person who has been on the list the longest, that is tied for the highest number of points gets it.

Are there really working people that can't afford $150 a month for rent?
Or does HUD house people that are unemployed?

Yes to both, but being employed brings you more points so will more likely get you assistance faster.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Aazadan

So let me get this straight, $100 a month is a lot of money when it's convenient for your argument, but $100 a month isn't a lot of money when it's convenient for your argument?

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

When you're living on $1000 a month, and have a total disposable income of $150, yes it's a substantial amount of your purchasing power, 2/3 of it actually.

When you're living on $20,000 a month as you need to be to actually get back $100 a month in tax savings and still have those same $850 in fixed costs per month, it's now less than 1 half of 1 percent of your purchasing power.

a reply to: Aazadan

As always I am always thinking about my mother.
She is disabled so we should defiantly look into it.

Are there really working people that can't afford $150 a month for rent?
Or does HUD house people that are unemployed?

Yes to both

That is a sad truth for american to hear about themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

So in your world the woman who needs government subsidy is independent and the one in a relationship off assistance isn't?

That's a sad thought.

a reply to: dawnstar

that's what i meant by "spending to spend", i'm saying raising taxes, adding vat, whatever method to earn more revenue won't fix anything, even if our revenue was trillions more it would still be spent somehow...

i've been poor most my life and my disability doesn't make things easier so it's not like i'm not affected but poor people should focus more on spending better instead of buying things they cannot afford, a house is a luxury not a need, you can live anywhere with a roof, running water, electricity and air/heating.

i've seen first hand how "assistance programs" put you in a mental prison, a cycle of bad decision making and makes you irresponsible with money and kills motivation to get out or do something for your future.

hardships push people to become better, while handouts do the opposite, the rules involved put you into a trap where you become afraid to save money, to make too much, afraid of outside help, afraid of doing anything wrong without even knowing.

welfare programs are mental and financial slavery. it's oppression disguised as help.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

150 bucks? That is 1700 less than my mortgage...sign me up!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

So in your world the woman who needs government subsidy is independent and the one in a relationship off assistance isn't?

That's a sad thought.

If you're forced to be in a relationship in order to be financially stable, you're a slave.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

So in your world the woman who needs government subsidy is independent and the one in a relationship off assistance isn't?

That's a sad thought.

If you're forced to be in a relationship in order to be financially stable, you're a slave.

And being forced to rely on the government is trading one slave master for another. NEITHER is independent. Independence sucks anyways, interdependence is in my opinion a much better thing.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

We need less single mothers in this country. Especially, urban single mothers.

Maybe this can help some make better decisions and be more caring and sympathetic to the taxpayers who foot the bill for their support.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Aazadan

So in your world the woman who needs government subsidy is independent and the one in a relationship off assistance isn't?

That's a sad thought.

If you're forced to be in a relationship in order to be financially stable, you're a slave.

And being forced to rely on the government is trading one slave master for another. NEITHER is independent. Independence sucks anyways, interdependence is in my opinion a much better thing.

How is financial assistance slavery? It doesn't demand anything from you. It's only there to help if you wind up in a bad situation.

a reply to: Aazadan

Because you are dependent on it just like in your situation.

a reply to: Aazadan

Again, I am totally against cutting manpower in the military, but for removing VAST amounts of money from the executive part of the military, and the corporate part of the military. You need manpower, you always will, no matter what the state of the world. But, you do not need over stuffed procurement procedures, designed to put money in the pockets of politicians and tycoons, rather than being focused on getting the best gear, into the hands of the serviceperson in general, at the best possible price available.

There's a difference in one party giving money, and another party giving money in exchange for sex (or more accurately, rape), household duties, and companionship. One is freedom, the other is the sort of thing one should goto prison for.