Trump administration considers $6 billion cut to HUD budget

[K1052]

It seems that it's to be a full scale war on the poor. The old, disabled, or veterans not to be spared.

Budgets for public housing authorities — city and state agencies that provide subsidized housing and vouchers to local residents — would be among the hardest hit. Under the preliminary budget, those operational funds would be reduced by $600 million, or 13 percent. Funds for big-ticket repairs at public housing facilities would be cut by an additional $1.3 billion, about 32 percent. That could have a major quality-of-life effects on the low-income families who rely on public housing: Tens of billions of dollars in backlogged repairs already plague the country’s 1.2 million public housing units, according to a 2010 HUD report

Under the proposal, direct rental assistance payments — including Section 8 Housing and housing vouchers for homeless veterans — would be cut by at least $300 million, to $19.3 billion. Additionally, housing for the elderly — known as the Section 202 program — would be cut by $42 million, nearly 10 percent. Section 811 housing for people with disabilities would be cut by $29 million, nearly 20 percent. Money available for Native American housing block grants would fall by $150 million, more than 20 percent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...05d3c21f7cf_story.html?utm_term=.a66b84bc6072

 

[MikeMike]

There's a LOT of republicans not going to be happy about the Section 8 cuts. A LOT of money is made from them.

 

[elitejp]

Dont know what to say about how to deal with the poor. If it was up to me I think I would limit govt support as much as possible. Let family deal with there own poor, or let local non profit non govt supported shelters deal with them.

One thing that you have to accept is that there will always be poor people. Ive lived in govt subsidized neighborhoods and most of the residents were white trash or low class black people. However the blacks drove a new vehicle and the whites were drinking and partying while both races had woman living in the housing with several kids and currently pregnant. Sounds stereotypical but thats just because thats the way it was and probably still is.

My mom currently lives near a subsidized neighborhood and its mainly drugs and prostitution with the occasional murder.

Working in OK for a while we had alot of mexicans working jobs. Mostly illegal but I still respect them. They were living 10 to a house and working 2 jobs. Rode a bicycle to and from work and sent most of what they earned back to family.

Americas definition of poverty isnt like the rest of the worlds. Im sorry if you have to take care of your parents or grandparents or that you cant afford to send them to a nursing home and so they now live with you. Take some responsibility and take care of your own

 

[ch33zw1z]

Easy to say. The reality of the situation won't present the same outcome if cuts like this start actually happening

 

[mxnerd]

Ben Carson, the new head of HUD, could be just Trump's puppet, probably will accept the cut since he probably has no idea at all.

 

[glenn1]

While his planned increases to defense spending are stupid, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending like this were inevitable regardless as our debt service and entitlement costs rise to become closer to 100% of spending. And once the Fed starts hiking interest rates up to a more normal level the cuts in discretionary spending won't be just Trump being mean. We aren't going back to 90% tax rates so we need to wind down discretionary spending in a measured way. Since progressives would never agree to cut any social welfare spending you might as well let Trump do it via his meathead methods.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ben Carson, the new head of HUD, could be just Trump's puppet, probably will accept the cut since he probably has no idea at all.

Now you know why he got the job. "Hey, blame it on my African American."

 

[Vic]

While his planned increases to defense spending are stupid, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending like this were inevitable regardless as our debt service and entitlement costs rise to become closer to 100% of spending. And once the Fed starts hiking interest rates up to a more normal level the cuts in discretionary spending won't be just Trump being mean. We aren't going back to 90% tax rates so we need to wind down discretionary spending in a measured way. Since progressives would never agree to cut any social welfare spending you might as well let Trump do it via his meathead methods.

You make it sound like the GOP plan for dealing with Trump is to throw him right in front of the recession bus.

 

[glenn1]

You make it sound like the GOP plan for dealing with Trump is to throw him right in front of the recession bus.

You honestly think not fixing maintenance issues with public housing is going to cause a recession? The slums becoming a bit more slummy won't even be noticed in our economy. This isn't the austerity boogeyman that's the Keynesians' worst nightmare, it's just reallocating spending from things like HUD to the military which you can argue on its merits (I think it's stupid to give the Pentagon even more money) but it's not recessionary.

 

[Vic]

You honestly think not fixing maintenance issues with public housing is going to cause a recession? The slums becoming a bit more slummy won't even be noticed in our economy. This isn't the austerity boogeyman that's the Keynesians' worst nightmare, it's just reallocating spending from things like HUD to the military which you can argue on its merits (I think it's stupid to give the Pentagon even more money) but it's not recessionary.

I was thinking more macroscopic, and the effects that rising interest rates and reduced government spending will have on the overall economy.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Dont know what to say about how to deal with the poor. If it was up to me I think I would limit govt support as much as possible. Let family deal with there own poor, or let local non profit non govt supported shelters deal with them.

One thing that you have to accept is that there will always be poor people. Ive lived in govt subsidized neighborhoods and most of the residents were white trash or low class black people. However the blacks drove a new vehicle and the whites were drinking and partying while both races had woman living in the housing with several kids and currently pregnant. Sounds stereotypical but thats just because thats the way it was and probably still is.

My mom currently lives near a subsidized neighborhood and its mainly drugs and prostitution with the occasional murder.

Working in OK for a while we had alot of mexicans working jobs. Mostly illegal but I still respect them. They were living 10 to a house and working 2 jobs. Rode a bicycle to and from work and sent most of what they earned back to family.

Americas definition of poverty isnt like the rest of the worlds. Im sorry if you have to take care of your parents or grandparents or that you cant afford to send them to a nursing home and so they now live with you. Take some responsibility and take care of your own

Maybe that's the way it is with some Housing Authorities, but the one I'm currently in, is plenty of just elderly / retired, some Vets, a few disabled, and generally, a very nice place to live, mostly, except for the fact that the place needs a whole lot of repairs / capital improvements. No kids, for the most part. Just a few people with dogs, and fewer still with cats. I really can't imagine this place, if they cut funding for it. It already operates at a loss, even with all of the rent collected.

 

[Maxima1]

While his planned increases to defense spending are stupid, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending like this were inevitable regardless as our debt service and entitlement costs rise to become closer to 100% of spending. And once the Fed starts hiking interest rates up to a more normal level the cuts in discretionary spending won't be just Trump being mean. We aren't going back to 90% tax rates so we need to wind down discretionary spending in a measured way. Since progressives would never agree to cut any social welfare spending you might as well let Trump do it via his meathead methods.

You're such a dumb***. Look at Japan. The US isn't even close to being bankrupt. Actually, it's impossible unless we voluntarily default.

 

[elitejp]

Maybe that's the way it is with some Housing Authorities, but the one I'm currently in, is plenty of just elderly / retired, some Vets, a few disabled, and generally, a very nice place to live, mostly, except for the fact that the place needs a whole lot of repairs / capital improvements. No kids, for the most part. Just a few people with dogs, and fewer still with cats. I really can't imagine this place, if they cut funding for it. It already operates at a loss, even with all of the rent collected.

I truly feel for the elderly. The early 20's to retirement age people can live houseless for all I care. With a few exceptions all of them should be working a job, and if necessary work 2 to be able to afford living in a home. There are so many ways to make a living and save money at the same time, but I admit due to the present situation of some its going to be a tough road out of poverty. But not impossible.

 

[agent00f]

While his planned increases to defense spending are stupid, cuts to non-defense discretionary spending like this were inevitable regardless as our debt service and entitlement costs rise to become closer to 100% of spending. And once the Fed starts hiking interest rates up to a more normal level the cuts in discretionary spending won't be just Trump being mean. We aren't going back to 90% tax rates so we need to wind down discretionary spending in a measured way. Since progressives would never agree to cut any social welfare spending you might as well let Trump do it via his meathead methods.

It's always comical when conservatives try to concoct elaborate theories for their transparent simpleton decisions. The military disproportionately benefits trump's rural white nationalist base, and HUD funding disproportionately the browns. Mystery solved.

 

[zinfamous]

Just payback for settling against NY city for Trump and Daddy's racist policies in the 70s.

 

[zinfamous]

Now you know why he got the job. "Hey, blame it on my African American."

lol. You are probably correct.

 

[glenn1]

I was thinking more macroscopic, and the effects that rising interest rates and reduced government spending will have on the overall economy.

"Enabling higher government spending" should be the last thing on the Federal Reserve's mind for when they set interest rate policy. When folks start wisely thinking about what level of future spending we should target rather than "oh noes the children" or whatever then we can talk. Until then every bit of evidence shows that partisans want to deficit spend away as much as they can as quickly as they can so the other side can't do it on their priorities instead. Who cares about 20, 30, 40, or more years from now when we can give ourselves tax cuts or big new entitlements today? Fvck the future, they can deal with the fallout later, but for now it's all about giving goodies to our political base.

 

[desura]

Meh, military spending is still government spending. Unlike HUD spending, the Nation as a whole actually gets some tangible benefit from military spending and simultaneously the military personale get something resembling HUD benefits.

 

[Maxima1]

"Enabling higher government spending" should be the last thing on the Federal Reserve's mind for when they set interest rate policy. When folks start wisely thinking about what level of future spending we should target rather than "oh noes the children" or whatever then we can talk. Until then every bit of evidence shows that partisans want to deficit spend away as much as they can as quickly as they can so the other side can't do it on their priorities instead.

Interest rate policy should be near zero forever! The natural rate of interest for a currency issuer is zero. Hiking interest rates create distortions via economic rents from interest payments and price level increases (read:inflation) from the cost of credit being reflected in everything. It's too bad we have economic illiterates running the show. Those idiots think we need 100-year bonds to "lock" in the interest rate. .

Who cares about 20, 30, 40, or more years from now when we can give ourselves tax cuts or big new entitlements today? Fvck the future, they can deal with the fallout later, but for now it's all about giving goodies to our political base.

Deficit spending isn't an issue if inflation doesn't go up. Even then, inflation isn't bad per se. Also, if the above is done, what is there to worry about? Btw, that's part of the reason why the CBO's projections of debt that go almost to next century were revised downward so much. The idiots realized that interest payments wouldn't go out of control.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/the-debt-non-spiral/

 

[Maxima1]

Meh, military spending is still government spending. Unlike HUD spending, the Nation as a whole actually gets some tangible benefit from military spending and simultaneously the military personale get something resembling HUD benefits.

What do we get? WWIII won't happen without that spending. Moreover, the military is basically welfare (heck, we have master sergeants in tool crib!) as many of those jobs would pay significantly less than the private sector. So the difference is what?

 

[desura]

What do we get? WWIII won't happen without that spending. Moreover, the military is basically welfare (heck, we have master sergeants in tool crib!) as many of those jobs would pay significantly less than the private sector. So the difference is what?

Discipline, purpose. Military provides those. HUD benefits don't require any of those. So yeah, I'm all for cutting HUD. THose people can just go join the military.

 

[sandorski]

Discipline, purpose. Military provides those. HUD benefits don't require any of those. So yeah, I'm all for cutting HUD. THose people can just go join the military.

By fixing HUD properties you get Construction Jobs and places for people to Live. How is that not a benefit to Americans or the Economy? Hell, it's probably a bigger benefit because the people getting those Jobs have more need for the $ than those building Weapons.

 

[Maxima1]

Discipline, purpose. Military provides those. HUD benefits don't require any of those. So yeah, I'm all for cutting HUD. THose people can just go join the military.

What's the value of the job? If instilling discipline is it, that's a pretty low standard you have. Look at what happens when they try to use their GI benefits. Give me a break.

You're a dolt. Many able-bodied people work while getting HUD benefits (e.g. pay about a third of rent) HUD provides a safety net against a monopoly. Since land is fixed, rent is monopolized. You're using less resources than other people if you rent because you'll lose out of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by renting.

 

[desura]

By fixing HUD properties you get Construction Jobs and places for people to Live. How is that not a benefit to Americans or the Economy? Hell, it's probably a bigger benefit because the people getting those Jobs have more need for the $ than those building Weapons.

And military bases need housing too and construction there brings on jobs. It all evens out. Ultimately, we get nothing from HUD recipients and in fact subsidize poverty. The military to a large extent is also attracting poor people by at least we get service in return. We get something.

 

[sandorski]

And military bases need housing too and construction there brings on jobs. It all evens out. Ultimately, we get nothing from HUD recipients and in fact subsidize poverty. The military to a large extent is also attracting poor people by at least we get service in return. We get something.

You get stable citizens, decrease in Crime, increased stability. A soldier only gives benefit if you go to war. Otherwise they are no more "useful" than a HUD recipient.