Look at this Without this sort of housing I couldn't live on my own. Without it thousands of American families would be out on the street. Yet Bush is proposing to cut funding to it when it's already struggling enough as it is! Why? Is there any reason to do this? There are dozens of things that could be cut. The way I see it a lot of the Republican party will cut programs that are beneficial to the poor such as, in MA, programs that provide free drug rehabiliation. Then they will have the nerve to complain about drug attacks and insist that welfare recipients be tested for drugs only to make the situation a whole lot worse! That makes no kind of logical sense... Neither does cutting taxes for people who do not need tax cuts at the expense of ordinary and struggling Americans. It isn't right. Rent costs are high enough as it is. What can he possibly expect to gain from doing something like this?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, we gotta buy some more bombs for Iraq....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So the economic analysis described in the article is wrong because...you say so?
Concrete reasons have been given. Some subsidies are increasing. Some are falling. This is based on a new method of calculating fari market rent.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If the problem is discrepancy in costs of rental between different states, why not let the states handle the low income vouchers?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dagonee... Your snarky tone towards me is really beginning to get on my nerves... Cut it out, please. I do not think I have been directing that sort of tone towards you, do not do that at me... That aside, I do admit that I am utterly ignorant when it comes to economics. But, I can't help thinking there are other things that can be cut and trimmed besides section 8 housing. Especially considering that without it a lot of people would end up homeless. He needs to stop trying to erode programs like this. It simply isn't right...
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I would want to read the actual proposal before jumping to agreeing with whatever slant the New York Times put on it -- in other words, get the facts first.
However, this is just a proposal, and will still need to go through Congress -- which is where our voices can be heard through our local representatives. So if you feel strongly about this, I suggest you contact your congressman.
(got interrupted in the middle of writing this, so if it is ramble, please forgive)
Farmgirl
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee, its worth noting that this new method of calculating fair market rent operates under the assumption that all that matters is a person be able to live in the metropolitan area -- that is, it averages rent costs in the city with those outside the city in the suburbs. Of course, this neglects that most of the jobs are in the city, and many/most low income people rely on public transportation of various kinds to reach their jobs, requiring they live close by (which usually means in the city, where most low income jobs are located).
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*will totally call and write representatives* Because there doesn't seem to be anything else that can be done...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, another thing is its a way to cut benefits without cutting benefits. Under the new calculation, the average allowance possible will still mostly be the same -- benefits "stay the same". However, people living out in the suburbs won't need all the extra money being funneled to them -- they're already living at the amounts they're allocated, based on the nearby housing prices. People living in the city will get less money. So total outlays will decrease because suburban poor will receive about the same, but city poor will receive less.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Dag's tone in his posts notwithstanding, the simple fact is decision makers must be concerned with the bigger picture.
And almost any major policy change is going to hurt someone - the question becomes, do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Am I particularly happy that I'm one of the eggs being broken to make an omlet? Not really, but if I agree the omlette needs to happen, it's only fair I take my chances with the rest.
-Trevor
Edit: For spelling
[ September 22, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee... Your snarky tone towards me is really beginning to get on my nerves... Cut it out, please. I do not think I have been directing that sort of tone towards you, do not do that at me...
That aside, I do admit that I am utterly ignorant when it comes to economics. But, I can't help thinking there are other things that can be cut and trimmed besides section 8 housing. Especially considering that without it a lot of people would end up homeless. He needs to stop trying to erode programs like this. It simply isn't right...
Jumping to the conclusion that the program is being "eroded" and immediately decrying Bush for this, with an admitted lack of understanding of the actual effects of the program, IS snarky.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's been no good case made that this needs fixing, other than that it costs a lot -- and it only costs a lot in comparison to other welfare items, not in comparison to most other parts of the budget.
In particular, I find it odd to be doing cost cutting here in the budget, where even if the system isn't perfect changes are going to result in misery, unemployment, and increased poverty for many and the proposed change is not projected to help any more people, instead of tackling even the most blatant of pork bills (something Bush as completely failed to do, despite his avowed stance against government waste).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The article isn't about CUTTING out low income housing, it's about Joe Sixpack getting $500 to live in a $400 place vs. Sally Sue getting $500 to live in a $1000 place.
Why should Joe get MORE than he needs and Sally Sue get less?
And the people complaining about this are the same ones who say that the Rich should pay a higher percentage of tax(which they already do) and the Poor should pay a lower percentage of tax.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
TMed-The problem is that this particular egg, if lost, translates into a whole series of other problems down the road.
With out a home address the poor find it much more difficult to get a job, keep thier kids in school, avoid becoming victims or victimizers (crimminals), etc.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm. That is an interesting point, Cstroman. Still, you do get a lot of cases where many of the rich don't pay taxes at all. I imagine that costs the country a great deal of money a year. Trimming the fat, putting a rein on unnessary spending, that I don't object to. But cutting funding to a lot of nessasary programs without realising the consequenses would be a lot worse... that I dislike... Hopefully, when this goes to congress they will take a balanced approach to things and just trim waste while keeping this helpful program in tact.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
That, Dan, is arguing the case on it's merits to determine if this particular omlette is actually required.
And far better educated people than myself can argue the nuances I cannot. But what I did what to point out is the short term ramifications cannot be the sole basis for decision making.
-Trevor
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Now that was a calm, level-headed approach, Syn (your last post). However, I would like for you to point me to some links that show me some rich who don't pay any taxes at all.
I know of many rich people (working for a bank, you know who in the community has the real money) but don't now of any that pay no taxes at all..
Farmgirl
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Why should Joe get MORE than he needs and Sally Sue get less?"
Chad, you appear to misunderstand the change to the law, here.
Currently, Joe is paying $300 per month to live in a studio apartment in the suburbs, for which the government pays his landlord an additional $300/month. Sally, who lives in a studio apartment next to the projects, a block or so from the bus line she takes to work every morning, also pays $500 per month for her studio; her landlord gets another $500 per month from the government, though, since the location of the apartment -- even near the projects -- puts its "fair market value" at around $1000 a month.
The government is sick of paying $500 a month for Sally's apartment, but doesn't want to seem insensitive by cutting the program. So what it's going to do is this: now, all "fair market value" is going to be determined by averaging the rental value of similar apartments across an entire metropolitan area. So Joe's studio, at $600/month in the suburbs, gets averaged with Sally's apartment (at $1000/month.) That means the fair rental value of BOTH apartments is now $800/month.
So the government now pays $400 to Joe's landlord, who can either "raise" Joe's rent to $700 or reduce Joe's contribution to just $100. The government also pays $400 to Sally's landlord, who can either reduce her rent or demand that she make up the difference.
In general, the changes to the program mean that urban renters will have to pay more in rent, while suburban renters will either pay less or, more likely, suburban landlords will make more money. This actually creates the situation you describe -- Joe getting more than he needs, and Sally getting less -- instead of fixing it.
[ September 22, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: Still, you do get a lot of cases where many of the rich don't pay taxes at all. I imagine that costs the country a great deal of money a year.
Wouldn't that mean that they don't get any tax breaks? *bats eyelashes*
-0-
I tend to feel that there is more than enough money available for government programs like housing; the problem lies in the beurocratic red tape and (perhaps unneccessary) administration costs to the programs. I think this because I've seen it in my public school system, and wonder more and more if the problem isn't a lot more widespread than the Education system.
Unfortunately, if there is a problem with this it will probably effect people like you the most, Synth. I can't imagine they'd actually fix problems high up, instead letting it trickle down as low as it can go.
This is all pure opinion, of course. I could be completely wrong...the system could be perfect.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Several articles I googled about taxes and supply side economics.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: you do get a lot of cases where many of the rich don't pay taxes at all. I imagine that costs the country a great deal of money a year.
This is spoken as a truism so often, but I wonder if it's really true.
Well, sometimes it is. Just because somebody is rich doesn't mean they should be taxed. Nobody is taxed for owning money -- they are taxed for earning or spending money.
A miser could be filthy rich and pay less taxes than you. I don't see how this is unfair. If he earns less and spends less than you, it makes sense for him to pay less taxes then you. The fact that he has spent as little as he could for the last 50 years and has saved up a lot of money is no reason to punish him. The only alternative is to tax people's possesions and savings, which would open up a whole new can of worms.
But what about people that earn and spend a lot? Are they really able to get away with paying very little taxes? Many people seem to believe so, and that idea is a major element in OSC's Investment Counselor. But is it true? I find it hard to believe, but I wouldn't really know
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also another thing that annoys me with the article is it claims the Bush Administration right at the top, but I don't see any reference to the Bush Administration below that. I see HUD and other people listed, but nothing from any of Bush's cabinet people.
It's as if the article is really about what HUD is doing, and they just slapped "Bush Administration" to the top of it.
Not very honest, but that's the liberal media.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't think taxing people's savings and possessions would be right. But, if loopholes are causing a lot of leaks in terms of taxing they should be closed. Especially if this wastes a great deal of money that could be used to keep nessasary programs funded. it just doesn't make any sense to me for things like education to suffer when some companies, not individuals, but companies actively avoid paying their taxes. It isn't right for the burden to go towards the middle class and lower class just because the upper class provides jobs. *Sounding a bit ignorant*
edit to add- Not the phrase liberal media again... There really isn't a liberal media... only a media mostly deadicated to sensationalism and whatever sells....
[ September 22, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You do know that the head of HUD is a Bush appointee right? As are the next several layers of management within the Department?
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
True, but that's like saying Supreme Court Justices are Clinton Administration or Bush Sr. Administration representatives.
Or that the CIA and FBI are Bush Administration organizations because of their appointees.
I seriously doubt the reforms mentioned are the work of the Bush Administration (as a whole) but the actual work of HUD. Maybe someone knows more than I do about the autonomy of the HUD department and it's current configuration.
It just seems they are really stretching to try and pin the actions of HUD on the whole administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Supreme Court justices serve for life. CIA and FBI serve terms, although traditionally they will resign on request.
HUD appointees serve at the president's whim.
No major policy change comes out without being approved by some portion of the administration, especially in this administration.
Dagonee
[ September 22, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: In general, the changes to the program mean that urban renters will have to pay more in rent, while suburban renters will either pay less or, more likely, suburban landlords will make more money.
The scenario as you described it, Tom, was a surprise to me. Possibly because in this metropolitan area, rent is much much HIGHER in the suburban areas (because everyone wants to live outside the core) than it is for urban. So, at least in our area, the $1000 apart. would be in the suburbs, and the $500 one in the urban...
Farmgirl
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I see what Dagon is saying, but I still get the feeling that what was done in this article is akin to taking the Catholic Priest who says "Pro Abortionists shouldn't take the eucharist" and then writing an article stating "The Catholic Church has proposed that anyone who is Pro-Abortion shouldn't take the Eucharist".
Yes the priest IS appointed by the church, but it wouldn't be fair to state that his position is the position of the entire church.
Especially when the article doesn't list any top cabinet approvals, etc. but in fact does just the opposite.
It pretty much puts all the action within Hud only, but then pastes the first sentence on there.
Just doesn't seem right.
But oh well.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:*will totally call and write representatives*
Do it. I write to them a couple times a month. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Possibly because in this metropolitan area, rent is much much HIGHER in the suburban areas (because everyone wants to live outside the core) than it is for urban."
It is exactly this "unusual" situation in the red states that causes a few people in the article to note that this change heavily punishes blue states. Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:In particular, I find it odd to be doing cost cutting here in the budget, where even if the system isn't perfect changes are going to result in misery, unemployment, and increased poverty for many and the proposed change is not projected to help any more people, instead of tackling even the most blatant of pork bills (something Bush as completely failed to do, despite his avowed stance against government waste).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)