Trump administration considers $6 billion cut to HUD budget

[desura]

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.

Lol no. Everyone hates it when Section 8 comes to their neighborhoods. Subsidizing the poor like that only rewards irresponsible behavior.

Soldiers gain skills and they serve the nation.

 

[sandorski]

Lol no. Everyone hates it when Section 8 comes to their neighborhoods. Subsidizing the poor like that only rewards irresponsible behavior.

Soldiers gain skills and they serve the nation.

Being Poor is irresponsible behaviour?

 

[desura]

Being Poor is irresponsible behaviour?

Yes. Especially having children.

 

[sandorski]

Yes. Especially having children.

Ok, that's stupid.

 

[Maxima1]

Lol no. Everyone hates it when Section 8 comes to their neighborhoods. Subsidizing the poor like that only rewards irresponsible behavior.

Do you have a problem with them receiving aid if they work? Why is a pharm tech in the military getting substantially more benefits than the one in the private sector? They would still eclipse them even if they received Section 8. Also, many of the elderly on Section 8 have worked more than a decade. Did you know a cook, cribby, dorm manager, etc. all get about $1.8 million pension after only 20 yrs?.How is that not welfare?

Soldiers gain skills and they serve the nation.

What is meant by "serve the nation"? A taxi driver has greater risk of dying on the job than the majority of military personnel.

 

[desura]

Ok, that's stupid.

Why don't you have ten, twenty children? You probably are capable of having that many. Why not? Because you know that you cannot reasonably take care of that many children.

 

[sandorski]

Why don't you have ten, twenty children? You probably are capable of having that many. Why not? Because you know that you cannot reasonably take care of that many children.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes. Especially having children.

Everybody would be rich if they just worked harder, obviously.

 

[MrDudeMan]

What does that have to do with anything?

I think the point is actually pretty clear. People shouldn't be having kids if they are poor. A lot of people may not like that type of thinking, but it is factually true at the very least. If you can't afford to raise a kid, why would you do it anyway and then make someone else pay for it?

 

[Maxima1]

I think the point is actually pretty clear. People shouldn't be having kids if they are poor. A lot of people may not like that type of thinking, but it is factually true at the very least. If you can't afford to raise a kid, why would you do it anyway and then make someone else pay for it?

That's why there's a thing called abortion and contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but Republicans have a stupid cognitive dissonance about it. Btw, can someone add up the benefits you get from having a kid that make the poor think the benefits offset the costs?

Edit: Since Roe v. Wade, more than 50 million were aborted! The Democrats have done far more to keep the standard of living from eroding.

 

[MrDudeMan]

That's why there's a thing called abortion and contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but Republicans have a stupid cognitive dissonance about it. Btw, can someone add up the benefits you get from having a kid that make the poor think the benefits offset the costs?

I wasn't arguing specifically for this and against everything else. We should be dropping cartons of plan B pills all over every urban area on a daily basis and encouraging them not to make tons of babies by cutting off funding. Hit it from both angles. Do you want a kid? Fine. Can you raise it on your own? No? Then fuck off.

I'm guessing it's still not worth the paycheck to have a kid simply for the benefits, but people are stupid.

 

[Maxima1]

I wasn't arguing specifically for this and against everything else. We should be dropped cartons of plan B pills all over every urban area on a daily basis.

I'm guessing it's still not worth the paycheck to have a kid simply for the benefits, but people are stupid.

The only benefit I can really see is priority for Section 8 housing. TANF food stamps, WIC, etc. doesn't even come close to giving benefits above and beyond a child's needs, so it's all just BS.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The only benefit I can really see is priority for Section 8 housing. TANF food stamps, WIC, etc. doesn't even come close to giving benefits above and beyond a child's needs, so it's all just BS.

You seem to be overlooking how vital those things are. Priority to get a house and food are basically the primary issues most poor people have.

 

[Jhhnn]

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 tangible benefits do we have from the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq? Well, other than thousands of shot up veterans, regional instability & ISIL?

We'd get better value for our money funding housing than stuff like this-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...04fefa61ee6_story.html?utm_term=.475ceab5394d

 

[hal2kilo]

I think the point is actually pretty clear. People shouldn't be having kids if they are poor. A lot of people may not like that type of thinking, but it is factually true at the very least. If you can't afford to raise a kid, why would you do it anyway and then make someone else pay for it?

I'm confused. It seems the same people that hate poor people, wouldn't allow them to have abortions either. Oh, I get it, make them sign that they read the abstinence pamphlet. If they signed, cut them off.

 

[desura]

What tangible benefits do we have from the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq? Well, other than thousands of shot up veterans, regional instability & ISIL?

We'd get better value for our money funding housing than stuff like this-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...04fefa61ee6_story.html?utm_term=.475ceab5394d

The global trade order is reliant on the preeminence of the US Navy. Iraq and Afghanistan are not all the military does, and you can disagree with the merit of those campaigns while still acknowledging all that the military does.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I'm confused. It seems the same people that hate poor people, wouldn't allow them to have abortions either. Oh, I get it, make them sign that they read the abstinence pamphlet. If they signed, cut them off.

Are you talking about me or someone else because that is not my opinion at all.

 

[desura]

I'm confused. It seems the same people that hate poor people, wouldn't allow them to have abortions either. Oh, I get it, make them sign that they read the abstinence pamphlet. If they signed, cut them off.

You are not allowed to make this argument due to moral norms and political correctness. But yes, abortion being legal has its main benefit imo in lower crime levels.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Well, yeh, but the prison industrial complex is a lot of jobs. That's what privatized prisons & mandatory minimums are all about, creating the shittiest job in the Country, being a prisoner, and a lot of less shitty jobs keeping them locked up.

The stockholders are doing great, however, & right wing politicians appreciate their support. They show their appreciation by making the law so that more people are locked up longer.

Win-win, right?

 

[Maxima1]

You seem to be overlooking how vital those things are. Priority to get a house and food are basically the primary issues most poor people have.

Have you even read my posts? The context of the post you quoted is that I would think the only benefit that would make someone want to have a child is Section 8. Of course, I know that's not how it works. Most pregnancies aren't planned, after all. The max food benefit is around $150. WIC much less. TANF is paltry at around $300 (almost not worth it just from having to fill out all the BS to get it) and has work requirements after two yrs and a small max lifetime benefit. Yeah, I'm going to want a kid over all that {/sarcasm]

I'd rather it go to basic income and higher minimum wage. Basic income gets rid of administrative costs, doling out benefits to a percentage of the poor, and pressures that keep the poor poor (e.g. can't have assets or even a few thousand in a bank account). Minimum wage gets rid of zero marginal productivity jobs, lessens income inequality, and surpasses the reservation wage (i.e. the lowest wage someone would work -- why would someone want to work if a cop gets 7 times as much with a back end just as large?)

 

[Ns1]

Who needs money for the poor when you can have a big fucking wall instead.

 

[sandorski]

I think the point is actually pretty clear. People shouldn't be having kids if they are poor. A lot of people may not like that type of thinking, but it is factually true at the very least. If you can't afford to raise a kid, why would you do it anyway and then make someone else pay for it?

It was a Red Herring. I could have responded with: Why instill discipline into someone who will later use it to shoot up Cops?

 

[Jhhnn]

The global trade order is reliant on the preeminence of the US Navy. Iraq and Afghanistan are not all the military does, and you can disagree with the merit of those campaigns while still acknowledging all that the military does.

That pre-eminence would remain at much lower spending levels. I think we may have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, for example.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who needs money for the poor when you can have a big fucking wall instead.

Billionaires always need tax cuts, too. It's a disease they seem to have- unfathomable greed.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Have you even read my posts? The context of the post you quoted is that I would think the only benefit that would make someone want to have a child is Section 8. Of course, I know that's not how it works. Most pregnancies aren't planned, after all. The max food benefit is around $150. WIC much less. TANF is paltry at around $300 (almost not worth it just from having to fill out all the BS to get it) and has work requirements after two yrs and a small max lifetime benefit. Yeah, I'm going to want a kid over all that {/sarcasm]

I'd rather it go to basic income and higher minimum wage. Basic income gets rid of administrative costs, doling out benefits to a percentage of the poor, and pressures that keep the poor poor (e.g. can't have assets or even a few thousand in a bank account). Minimum wage gets rid of zero marginal productivity jobs, lessens income inequality, and surpasses the reservation wage (i.e. the lowest wage someone would work -- why would someone want to work if a cop gets 7 times as much with a back end just as large?)

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.