Trump administration considers $6 billion cut to HUD budget

[Maxima1]

I have read your posts and, until this one, I didn't think they were stupid. Social programs give people housing and food, which are the most important things there are when you get down to it. Poor people will do nothing to prevent the birth of a child because the child represents a way to basic needs. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you, but maybe I did.

Stuff like food stamps is a wash. There is a max benefit of roughly $150 per eligible person and obviously this is limited to food only (which is stupid because it screws up the budget line). Having kids doesn't really give you more benefits.

I'm getting the sense that you've never actually experienced any of this or talked to anyone else who has. I know a handful of people who are on some of these programs and I know for a fact they receive well over $1000 per month as well as reduced rent because I help them with their finances.

List out the benefits. I've already stated that Section 8 would be the primary reason due to priority from the lengthy waitlists. The others like TANF, WIC, and food stamps are a wash and negligible for benefiting oneself.

Planned or not, having kids has put food on their tables with less work than it otherwise would have been even if the whole thing is a net loss in the end. That's why I said people are stupid. I still think they should have been force fed contraception because they are scum of the earth types of people, but that's a different issue.

Dude, nobody has free will. It's all genetic and environmental factors. So many dolts assume like they would have been different if they were in their shoes when they would have had the same issues.

 

[Ns1]

earned income tax credits?

 

[Maxima1]

earned income tax credits?

You had to work to get it? Lets put this in perspective. A pharm tech receiving this will still be getting substantially less than a pharm tech in the military. Yet people always ***** about the people at the bottom with no bennies making around ~$8-10 an hour.

The EITC helps in getting people to work because then the job will be above the reservation wage. I can't blame them when a cop, correctional officer, librarian, etc. will be making several times them in just a year and rent is taking basically all the income to the point that there is no disposable income.

 

[Ns1]

Just sayin, kids = money. Multiple kids = more money.

 

[elitejp]

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.

In my experience poor neighborhoods that require federal funded housing dont typically attract the most upright citizens. Even if you are poor my recommendation is to explore other possibilities and use these types of housing as a last resort. Outside of old folk retirement neighborhoods (due to old folks not really being the high crime demographic) most of these places are nothing more than white trash and black trash with high levels of crime and drugs.

 

[MajinCry]

Stop cutting social services, stop strangling public education, stop controlling contraception, stop controlling the wombs of women, stop spending trillions on killing brown people, and the problem will sort itself.

But nah, it's those fuckin' blacks and reds, havin' kids on their $3k a year. So what if they are impoverished and have no opportunity? They should just go to Harvard for a real education.

 

[Maxima1]

Just sayin, kids = money. Multiple kids = more money.

Yes, at about $2000 per kid up to 3, which isn't much. But the ironic thing is the EITC was something conservatives like because of the family BS (at the same time, they have severe cognitive dissonance over it). Of course, if they want it, you have to expand it to the poorest, otherwise the optics will look bad.I'd personally rather have a policy that helps the poor without favoring those poor who have kids.

But nah, it's those fuckin' blacks and reds, havin' kids on their $3k a year.

It's really hysterical. There are a lot of conservative schlubs in government who won't admit their own hypocrisy. For example, the cops here get a $3 million+ pension. In one month, him sitting on his *** will already cover an EITC. Same goes for the military even for enlisted. One month after working only 20 yrs and they can just sit on their *** collecting an EITC each month.

 

[agent00f]

I have read your posts and, until this one, I didn't think they were stupid. Social programs give people housing and food, which are the most important things there are when you get down to it. Poor people will do nothing to prevent the birth of a child because the child represents a way to basic needs. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you, but maybe I did.

I'm getting the sense that you've never actually experienced any of this or talked to anyone else who has. I know a handful of people who are on some of these programs and I know for a fact they receive well over $1000 per month as well as reduced rent because I help them with their finances. Planned or not, having kids has put food on their tables with less work than it otherwise would have been even if the whole thing is a net loss in the end. That's why I said people are stupid. I still think they should have been force fed contraception because they are scum of the earth types of people, but that's a different issue.

Poor people have more kids as a way to improve their chances at economic viability in old age. This is true whether or not they get marginal benefits, just take a look at birth rates in 3rd vs 1st world countries, and the way that number moves as those places develop. If anything, giving people money is a surefire way to reduce birthrate.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, at about $2000 per kid up to 3, which isn't much. But the ironic thing is the EITC was something conservatives like because of the family BS (at the same time, they have severe cognitive dissonance over it). Of course, if they want it, you have to expand it to the poorest, otherwise the optics will look bad.I'd personally rather have a policy that helps the poor without favoring those poor who have kids.

It's really hysterical. There are a lot of conservative schlubs in government who won't admit their own hypocrisy. For example, the cops here get a $3 million+ pension. In one month, him sitting on his *** will already cover an EITC. Same goes for the military even for enlisted. One month after working only 20 yrs and they can just sit on their *** collecting an EITC each month.

Government worker or service related benefits reflect the supply/demand realities of a volunteer force. You can change or reduce them but it might effect recruitment. Personally I think the standing force of active duty should be reduced, but it's silly to hold pay and benefits against servicemen or cops, etc when they had nothing to do with setting those pay and benefit levels.

 

[Maxima1]

Government worker or service related benefits reflect the supply/demand realities of a volunteer force. You can change or reduce them but it might effect recruitment. Personally I think the standing force of active duty should be reduced, but it's silly to hold pay and benefits against servicemen or cops, etc when they had nothing to do with setting those pay and benefit levels.

Are you for real? It's definitely NOT supply and demand. Police departments can have thousands of applicants for very few positions. In one place in CA, they reduced compensation by about $20K and still got more than enough applicants.

Same goes for the military. People don't look at the back end btw, so pensions are asinine for attraction and retention. The Pentagon's board of business commission wants it all gone, btw. If 401k is good for everyone else even if they have much more demanding jobs, it's good for them, too.

The military also needs to stop denying people the opportunity to serve for trivial reasons. Even after MEPS, tons of people in basic end up being sent home for trivial medical that wasn't caught at MEPS. The ironic part is that this all goes away when an actual war starts. They can also better recruit if they did a better job separating the civilian-like jobs from infantry, cavalry, etc. because people have an irrational fear and perception that military = war. There was an article not too long ago that suggested that the military could save billions on just logistical jobs by putting them into DoD civilians instead.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Poor people have more kids as a way to improve their chances at economic viability in old age. This is true whether or not they get marginal benefits, just take a look at birth rates in 3rd vs 1st world countries, and the way that number moves as those places develop. If anything, giving people money is a surefire way to reduce birthrate.

Poor people have more kids because they're lookin for whatever pleasure they can get out of life

It's not like they're checking long term projections on their investments as a decision factor before baby makin'

 

[agent00f]

Poor people have more kids because they're lookin for whatever pleasure they can get out of life

It's not like they're checking long term projections on their investments as a decision factor before baby makin'

And yet as if by miracle birthrate drops systematically as a function of social welfare. For example india which is still rather behind/poor in many areas, yet projected to reach birthrate parity shortly.