It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:04 AM
link   
people think we can afford all these assistance programs but we can't, we need to do something or everything will be canceled someday when the money runs out in the 2030's.

its either more expenses now or the programs get canceled in the future. at the senate hearing he clearly stated that they are running out of money, at least that's what i heard from his words.




posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: MarlbBlack

Now, you may say that even the simple joy of sex at its most enjoyable, is to be denied to anyone who either has too little money to raise children, or occupies a demographic otherwise which makes their rearing of children a societal issue from your perspective. But luckily, your opinion, while as valid as any other, is irrelevant to the matter at hand, because human beings have the right to determine for themselves, what they will and will not do, and the justifications thereof.


I agree, so long as you do not ask someone else to be responsible for the consequences. If they pay their own bills and get no assistance they can do whatever they want.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

hey, I know how to make things better!!! let's have another giant tax break for the rich!!!

you can't get blood out of a stone, when you have wages so low that people need those gov't assistance programs just to keep a lifestyle that enables them to keep working those jobs. when you have a healthcare industry so out of wack that around 50% of their revenue is coming from those assistance programs... when you have wal mart spending time trying to figure out how just a small cut in food stamps will affect their bottom line....
any cuts to those programs is gonna just end up costing us somewhere else!!!



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

First of all, your government looses WAY more money in corporate fraud against the taxpayer, and in wasting money on proxy armies in the Middle East, than it does on any program internally. The things your government does that are directly beneficial to the people, are far outweighed by the things it does for rich donors, which have NO positive consequence for the common person. You want cheaper government, you start cutting away the things that benefit the people not one bit, not the things upon which some people rely.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It does not matter whether you agree or not.

The fact is that there is nothing that can, or should be done, to reduce the amount of sex people are having, regardless of the justification, or the consequences.

That in mind, either you are ok with abortion, and you set your nation up to be ok with abortion, without permitting faith groups a word on the matter (because separation of Church and state is fundamental to the health of both faith and state), or you are ok with paying whatever bills arise from the consequences of a properly free society, where no one can tell anyone else what to do with their bodies. Those are the options, without caveat, proviso or addenda.

Pick one and stick to it.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   
with how things are going, in the future i see many government programs being cut, privatized or nationalized eventually, while taxes will increase, more taxes will be added to our tax system or both.

it will happen regardless of who is elected...



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




If they pay their own bills and get no assistance they can do whatever they want.


but ya, yous love freedom so much don't yous??
I've lived in some of those hud subsidized housing... we always ended up paying full price for them and weren't subsidized.. sometimes we ended up moving out of them because the rent increased beyond what we could afford, and still couldn't get subsidies for them.... but I will tell ya something here...
there always seemed to be just as many families there that had someone heading off to work every morning as there were single moms in them.. there were restaurant assistant managers, there were school bus drivers, there were factory workers.....
where do you stand on increasing the minimum wage so these workers can earn enough that they don't need that gov't assistance?

dependency=servitude

if you can't support the idea that women deserve the same pay rate as men doing the same job, or that anyone who works a 40 hour week should be paid enough to be able to live at least in somewhat comfort that week....
then you not a supporter of freedom!!!



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

even if that was cut out they would just find other ways to spend the money, our biggest problem is a government designed to overspend on purpose regardless of how much money there is.

despite what people think, cutting military spending wont fix it. changing the depression era mindset that see's government overspending as a way to boost economic growth, is what needs to be done.
edit on 5-5-2018 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

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.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Get teh jerbz!!! And don't have sex unless you're borderline wealthy. Save teh babbies!



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere




changing the depression era mindset that see's government overspending as a way to boost economic growth, is what needs to be done.


after the depression, that spending was used to build america up, it made us one of the greatest nations on earth!!
and yes, it provided alot of jobs for the returning ww2 vets and provided a great deal of economic growth... but it built up!! that isn't even close to what we are doing now. when they claim that they are doing something because it will create, or keep jobs, what they are saying is that it is beneficial to them to enrich their buddies. when they build airports that no one wants, bridges to no where, and all the other crazy stuff they are doing, there is someone on the receiving end ready to reap the profits and more than likely send a reward back to those who managed to get the bill passed that gave them access to the federal funds. they have sucked main street and your average worker dry thru their corruption and selfish greed. cutting the programs that are actually helping those at the lower end of the economic scale isn't gonna do anything except give them more money to hand out to their buddies and TANK THIS ECONOMY!!!



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
All those links are by "political columnists" and refer back to sources from the NY Post
In other words of the great Paul Harvey "and now for the rest of the story"



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
people think we can afford all these assistance programs but we can't, we need to do something or everything will be canceled someday when the money runs out in the 2030's.

its either more expenses now or the programs get canceled in the future. at the senate hearing he clearly stated that they are running out of money, at least that's what i heard from his words.


Gee- I don't know, how about WE CUT THE EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY POLITICIANS SUCK OFF THE PUBLIC TEET???? I'm personally sick of being told to tighten my belt, while these bastards live high on the hog, take graft and bribery, and treat everyone else like peasants!
edit on 5-5-2018 by wylekat because: Lost an s



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The party of those 'good Christian peoples' once again leading by example.

Disgusting.

I'd wager most bitching about people who get assistance also get a tax refund at the start of the year.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

A tax refund is the gov giving you back your own money because you paid in too much. It is not a gov subsidy.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

A tax refund is the gov giving you back your own money because you paid in too much. It is not a gov subsidy.


Yes, and when you factor in deductions and such many of them walk away having paid zero in federal taxes and then get on the internet and complain about 'muh tax dollas'



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

A tax refund is the gov giving you back your own money because you paid in too much. It is not a gov subsidy.


Yes, and when you factor in deductions and such many of them walk away having paid zero in federal taxes and then get on the internet and complain about 'muh tax dollas'
Like who?



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

but our government isn't spending on things that help with growth like back then, many such measures aren't even in place anymore.

sure our government has the depression recovery era mindset but it has forgotten the basic philosophy of keynes, austerity in good times and responsible government, spending just to spend isn't helping growth at all.



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

they aren't spending just to spend, they are spending to enrich themselves and their buddies!!! even those social programs that you seem to think should be cut does more to enrich their buddies (like Hannity and hud) far more than it helps the poor and because their main concern is to use them to produce wealth for themselves and not really much concern at all for the poor, they have just created more poor to profit off of........ if the poor can't afford this rent increase, and chooses their meds, food, ect over their rent, just where are the landlords then if not with a choice between evicting the renters and having empty apartments or just taking what the renters can pay? and, if I were to take a guess as to just how many hud subsidized housing places were owned by the low level politicians in my hometown a few decades ago, I would say probably half of them were!!! it's been a cash cow for years!

you can't get blood out of a stone, keep trying to and you're gonna find healthcare providers going bust, the market filling up with empty low income housing units for sale, and stores going bust because of the lack of customers...
because the bulk of the rich's money isn't going into providing us with good paying jobs, or being spent on main street...
it's being circulated through wall street and other avenues in hopes of obtaining greater rewards!!!




edit on 5-5-2018 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Southern Guardian

OMG! NO! Say it ain't so Joe?

Their rent went up? Aww hell no.

monthly minimum rent to $150.

$150 a month rent? whoa wait what? They have to pay $100 more per month and its an issue?

They had $50 for a long while, and welfare isn't a career, so, they should have been bettering their income right?

Oh, they didn't? And now need more?


I would have been thrilled to pay $150 for rent 30 years ago.
Single motherhood shouldn't be economically encouraged by the government.
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.
It's not the taxpayer's job to pay for other people's children in the first place.
Not using birth control is a choice, having sex is a choice.
People need to have consequences for their actions or they learn NOTHING>




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join