What if HUD disappeared? (rand paul article) Ron Paul was same veiws.

This thread goes along the same lines as, 'Ron Paul wants to eliminate the department of education and that means America will never have education again!!!!'

Seriously?....seriously?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


What about the poor people who are disabled or elderly? Those who are on minuim wage who do not qualify for market rate housing? Should they just be homeless so you can be comfortable. That is very selfish that people are asking for more when others have less.
I live on $800 per month without low income housing I would have to live on the streets. I work part time, I go to school and I am disabled. That does not make me less of a person does it??????

reply to post by eLPresidente


These threads are good, because they give people clarity who are mislead about Ron Paul / Rand Paul / Any other politicians positions on certain subjects.

The media will ALWAYS have a candidate they support, whether it's obvious or not. The candidate will change from agency to agency, but the tactics remain the same. Misinterpret the opposition's ideologies, paint them as evil people who hate the poor, the disabled, homosexuals, wildlife, whatever, and get people to hate them off-hand, without further consideration.

So now people have an opportunity to bring this stuff up on ATS and through hopefully civil discussion learn the truth behind the matter.

I have a friend who hated Ron Paul because he voted against the bill in 2004 that simply commended the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ron Paul explained why he voted against it, and it makes perfect sense from a Libertarian standpoint, and still people do not understand the logic behind it.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."

Ron Paul is simply advocating that the federal government back out of civil and social issues, and allow the innovative people and the states they reside in to solve these problems. We would have the means to do so if the Feds weren't wallet-raping us.

Additionally, DEMAND will dictate what services employers and businesses offer. If there are 3 restaurants on a street, 2 provide handicapped parking and the third does not, where are all the disabled people going to eat? Exactly.. No need to spend tax dollars to regulate this, because this is very clearly a situation that the market will sort out to the benefit of everyone. If the third business wants a share of this money, they will have to make those accommodations.

People seem to have forgotten how good we all can be at problem solving and community building when we have the means and motivation to do so. I assure you that you and your community will come up with better solutions for your situation than the federal government can. I'd gladly bet money on the same.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

That is very selfish that people are asking for more when others have less.

Exactly what I am saying. It is extremely selfish of a system that already steals a decent percentage of my income every payday to not ask for, but demand even more from me. This is killing the middle class. If it continues, we'll all be lining up at the HUD office. Furthermore, it is the system that ensures the system remains in demand, if you follow. The road of handouts and entitlements we're traveling on merely continues to undercut and emasculate the free market and forces more people to rely on those same handouts. The smart, right, and FAIR thing to do would be to dramatically scale back those handouts and entitlements, and allow the free market to balance itself in regards to supply and demand. Rental rates would decrease and those with lower incomes would be able to find homes in their price range. Granted, it may be necessary to not have cable TV, cell phones, or imported beer... but that all was once considered normal out of reach luxuries for lower middle class families.

Here is something else to think about is what if HUD on the state level dependent is on HUD from the federal level. I have heard from several agencies that they rely on federal grants. I don't think the state level is enough to support the system.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
Here is something else to think about is what if HUD on the state level dependent is on HUD from the federal level. I have heard from several agencies that they rely on federal grants. I don't think the state level is enough to support the system.

Only because the federal government is robbing the states of wealth.

Eliminate unnecessary/unconstitutional departments, shrink the federal government back to what it was intended for, and let the states keep their money.

No need for federal grants.

Right now, simply put, the system is set up to take your money through a(n) (unconstitutional) federal income tax, this money goes toward a billion different things - social security, defense (war), fat government salaries and insurance programs, foreign aid, grants for education, grants for housing, grants for the arts, grants for whatever else.. But also for the salaries of all those uneccessary government workers, and a bunch of other stuff.

So Ron Paul and Rand Paul are talking about ultimately keeping that money in the state. That means keeping it in your pocket.

So now we can eliminate alot of the spending the feds do, and we have a lot of money left over. Ultimately, killing these federal handouts will universally increase wealth. Instead of your tax dollars going through 90 nets before they come back to you in the form of a grant, or government housing assistance, they are going through far fewer nets and being distributed to your locality by your locality. Do you see the benefits now?

I'm sorry if my explanation sucks, I'm at work and being interrupted.

If someone tells you that funding for these things should be completely abolished, they either don't understand or are purposefully misleading you. If someone tells you that we can cut out a lot of the bureaucracy and effectively spend less to have the same services, you are talking to someone with at least a decent understanding of the problems we face today. No one wants to leave people high and dry, Ron and Rand Paul are just championing a more efficient and economic way of doing so. The Federal government does not have the right to redistribute our tax dollars like this, but the states do. I don't mind chipping in to help those less fortunate than me, but it would be nice to know it was being done as efficiently as possible by a local organization that I can and would hold accountable for their actions.

Whoa, slow your roll, because you obviously didn't even READ YOUR OWN SOURCE! This has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul, and it seems to me that you are intending to turn people against him by fabricating these lies.

I am sure you will say that it was an honest mistake, and if that is the case, it is still horrible because there are gullible people on here who WILL believe this. As the OP it is up to you to make sure what you post is accurate. So, nothing personal, but you have to start paying closer attention...

I believe it was most likely a mistake on your part...but if it wasn't, for one thing, you can't come to my birthday party.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


This is not 100% guarntee. Right now I pay $150 in rent. Would the rents go down by that much where a one bedroom would be $150-$200? To be able to meet all the needs of everyone rents would have to go down to low income housing levels. It is not selfish to want people to have housing.
It is not selfish to not want to live on the streets.I don't want that for you either but if you were to falll wouldn't you want an option rather than live on the streets. I was really hoping to steer this discussion away from this type of thinking.

reply to post by JiggyPotamus


I did not realize there were 2 republican candiates with the same last name. I posted another article that talks about Ron Paul. He does want to cut HUD!

Some of Ron Paul's ideas will cause short term distress but end with long term prosperity. Like ending the fed. Things are so out of balance now that you can't just balance it over night, that what Ron's transition programs are for.

What is his transition program for HUD or low income housing? There are people who are long term disabled that may never be able to keep with the cost of living. What about the elderly? No matter what this is asking for the poor to suffer. The shame is that it is the helpless ones that will suffer most; the elderly and disabled. Not those typical ones on welfare that conservatives like to trash so much.
Not only that but the poor have suffered a lot this past few years. I really don't have patience for things to be smoothed at. I am living on the edge as is. If I suddenly have to pay out 50% of my income to rent I will be back to living miserably. I will have a place to live but no gas to leave to go anywhere. Sure I will barely have my basics but won't be able to heat my own home.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Homelessness is already a problem in the US.
Disbanding useless government will only caise a vacuum, this will be filled by state or county organizations.
The way it should be.
Maybe housing would even come down, but then again everything is overpriced.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by JiggyPotamus

 

I did not realize there were 2 republican candiates with the same last name. I posted another article that talks about Ron Paul. He does want to cut HUD!

There are not two GOP candidates with the same name. Rand Paul is a Senator, and is not competing against his father in the Republican Primaries.

And I agree, you should clarify your original post. I understand the mistake but it definitely will mislead others.

If you have supporting documentation about Ron Paul, you should attach and address it seperately, if only to avoid reader's confusion.

reply to post by dreamseeker


Nobody deserves subsidized housing over anyone else, especially just because they won't work.

Tear HUD down, throw it in the garbage. Dismantle Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac as well, if you can't afford a house, the Government shouldn't subsidize it.

reply to post by g146541


From what I have seen in this recession the more rental properties are in demand the more they go up! Does HUD work on the state level now? Is it dependent on the federal level? Would housing for sure go down to $150-$300 so everyone can be housed? Sure homelessness will always be a problem for any country.(it really does not need to be.) but why increase it by millions?

reply to post by Rockpuck


So the disabled and elderly deserve to die on the streets? I am not looking for this judgemental comments. This is what disgusts me about some on ATS! Everyone deserves a home. You can't blame someone for being disabled or elderly. Back in the 1950s women worked from home and were stay at home moms so when their husbands died they had to rely on social security!
Your comment is unfeeling and uncompassionate!!!!

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by g146541

 

From what I have seen in this recession the more rental properties are in demand the more they go up! Does HUD work on the state level now? Is it dependent on the federal level? Would housing for sure go down to $150-$300 so everyone can be housed? Sure homelessness will always be a problem for any country.(it really does not need to be.) but why increase it by millions?

The housing market was flooded with renters after all the foreclosures we've seen. Again, due to bad policy and lending practices that artificially inflated the housing market.. So this bubble increased value for a time, and when that value fell out, all those people that lost everything flooded the rental market and artificially drove those prices up as well. The solution is to gut and recreate the system, not to carry on the same way that got us in this mess.

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

This is not 100% guarntee. Right now I pay $150 in rent. Would the rents go down by that much where a one bedroom would be $150-$200? To be able to meet all the needs of everyone rents would have to go down to low income housing levels.

Earlier you said you make $800 per month. You pay about 19% of your income on rent... I have a very modest 3 bedroom house in a marginal at best neighborhood up here in Alaska. I pay 35% of my income towards my lease every month. In addition, I also get to pay for other people's housing via taxes... let's take a stab in the dark and say that's another 5% of my income gone (BTW, I wish mt total tax burden was only 5%). Are your utilities subsidised? Mine aren't... so there goes another 5% of my income. The "those who have should pay a higher burden in taxes" crowd is all about percentages of income, right? Well lookie here, the entitlement horsecrap is already forcing me to pay a hell of a lot more than what is right and fair.

For what it is worth, it is nigh unto impossible for me to cut my rent. Anchorage is a very heavily HUD influenced community. Every single place you can find for under !1,300-$1500 per month is income restricted... oh goody, I make more than the cut off point required to live in one of those affordable places.

As far as your what to do quandry, try doing what people have done for centuries when the government wasn't pissing away everything on handouts, find a roommate. It isn't selfish to dream about anything, btw, but it certainly is selfish to feel entitled to the brow sweat of others to pay for your dreams/wants.

reply to post by dreamseeker


When you pay taxes and don't live off the system, perhaps we could have a one on one conversation. Until then, my position is as it is.. I'm sick and effing tiered of paying for the poor AND the rich while the middle class gets SCREWED. No, I don't feel bad for you or anyone else when I see the livelihood of the taxpaying base of this country DECIMATED by this economy all the while everyone continues to wring our pockets for every last dime.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I wasn't looking for a big debate on this. The room mate idea is horrible because I have no one to be my room mate! This is not just about me but 46 million americans who are in poverty. It is unrealistic to ask adults to live 3 or 4 to an apartment just because they were born with a disablity!!! That is so wrong.
Just because you can't get government housing does not mean millions should suffer. 35% is not the same to you as it is to me. No matter what $760 does not go far. There is a big difference between incomes percentages have a different value with different incomes. I rounded up my income but my actual income ranges from $700-$800 per month.