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

Ben pro-life is turning up the rent on the poorest in America, and analysts say single mothers will be hurt the most:

The proposal by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to at least triple the minimum rent that the poorest Americans pay for federally subsidized housing would put nearly 1 million children at risk of homelessness, according to an analysis of HUD data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Under current rules, families that receive housing subsidies typically pay 30 percent of their income for rent. Public housing agencies can instead charge a minimum rent of up to $50 a month. Mr. Carson’s proposal, if approved by Congress, would raise that monthly minimum rent to $150.

www.post-gazette.com...

What's the logic behind Ben Carson's increases? Well it's aimed at shrinking social expenditure because you know, we gotta prioritize billions into the military and bombing of foreign nations and that money has to come somewheres. Ben Carson's actions work well with his pro-life stance and those of his supporters because you know, women should be forced to have babies and once they have them, just deal with it you know! Because this would be a great way of convincing women not to abort! The logic astounds me you know? Pro-life, but not damn care in the world once those babies are born.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

"Public housing agencies can instead charge a minimum rent of up to $50 a month."

Where is the article? I want to see what author composed that logic-tortured sentence.

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?

a reply to: carewemust

Here you go carewemust:

Here:
www.washingtonpost.com... hers-the-most/

Here:
nymag.com...

Here we go again:
www.newser.com...

I care about you being informed, because I must..

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?

Wow 150 bones a month for rent?

Ironically, this is the same price as their monthly cable bill

Really?!!?
I mean....really?!?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Really? Is the guy off his rocker, or just a regular sociopath that thinks he can get away with this kind of abuse?

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

For people who live borderline poverty, and those people exist in the US, $150.00 a month is a lot of money. That's an additional $25 a week to be spent on rent, money that would typically be stretched a long way. This isn't chump change, people are struggling out there. What's more astounding is the fact this will impact single mothers heavily... after we hear non-stop about how on earth women can choose abortion because it's murder. I mean go figure right? Logic right?

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

For people who live borderline poverty, and those people exist in the US, $150.00 a month is a lot of money. That's an additional $25 a week to be spent on rent, money that would typically be stretched a long way. This isn't chump change, people are struggling out there. What's more astounding is the fact this will impact single mothers heavily... after we hear non-stop about how on earth women can choose abortion because it's murder. I mean go figure right? Logic right?

You are bul#ting so much right now I'm looking for a matador.

I make an extra $150-200 a month due to tax reform, and it's crumbs...but now apparently $150 a month is a lot of money?!?

Sigh...

I'm in government subsidized housing.

I pay $1600+ a month in rent for a 1094sq ft apt. (Used to rent a house 2200sq ft for $1000/mo, until the private owner got greedy).

Rent in the area is horrendously expensive, bordering $2000/mo for a place of any liveable size for a family, often times more than $2000/mo.

Not able to get a mortgage tho, even tho I'm paying more in rent then I would for a home loan. Banker rules..

Government subsidies housing is a joke, as the private owners rake in the cash from both the government and the renters and only adjust rent down a tiny bit vs the surrounding housing market and still rake it in. All while there are meth labs and crime out the wazoo.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I have a roof over my head, but how do they expect anything or anyone to get better when they're bleeding a turnip dry.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

For people who live borderline poverty, and those people exist in the US, $150.00 a month is a lot of money. That's an additional $25 a week to be spent on rent, money that would typically be stretched a long way. This isn't chump change, people are struggling out there. What's more astounding is the fact this will impact single mothers heavily... after we hear non-stop about how on earth women can choose abortion because it's murder. I mean go figure right? Logic right?

What?!
You can't keep conflating one issue to fit the other. What's your actual point after that post.
Goal posts go at the end of the field, not the middle and not the neighbors yard next door.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Being Pro-Life and making life more expensive for folk as have no money to splash around, are two antagonistic positions.

Carson needs to figure out what he really believes. If children must be born, then their parents must have enough money to feed them, clothe them, provide for their needs. Given that rental of accommodation is traditionally the major drain on household resources, moves such as this make no sense from that perspective.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Ben pro-life is turning up the rent on the poorest in America, and analysts say single mothers will be hurt the most:

The proposal by Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to at least triple the minimum rent that the poorest Americans pay for federally subsidized housing would put nearly 1 million children at risk of homelessness, according to an analysis of HUD data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Under current rules, families that receive housing subsidies typically pay 30 percent of their income for rent. Public housing agencies can instead charge a minimum rent of up to $50 a month. Mr. Carson’s proposal, if approved by Congress, would raise that monthly minimum rent to $150.

www.post-gazette.com...

What's the logic behind Ben Carson's increases? Well it's aimed at shrinking social expenditure because you know, we gotta prioritize billions into the military and bombing of foreign nations and that money has to come somewheres. Ben Carson's actions work well with his pro-life stance and those of his supporters because you know, women should be forced to have babies and once they have them, just deal with it you know! Because this would be a great way of convincing women not to abort! The logic astounds me you know? Pro-life, but not damn care in the world once those babies are born.

They don't have daddy's to pay?

Coz ya need a daddy and mommy to make the baby.

Kill the baby for free, if ya that worried about paying and raising it, from Planned parenthood.

Or keep ya legs closed!

F'n puppy mills. Sterilize them.

Ya got 7? No more!!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Don't worry when tent cities grow so will the fines and arrests.. I agree this is a bit shady and not a good idea.. BUT at the same time these are some of the people I see loading 2 carts of groceries in their new car, talking on their new huge Iphone while their kids are running rampant.

Double edge sword and really a touchy subject for most.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Why must a woman on welfare with 3 different baby daddies even be considering to have more children? That's the real question.

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?

Lemme educate ya here, bub.
I'm on disability. I get a whole $875 or so a month.
$130 of that goes to Medi(o)care.
$100-ish goes to power, depending on the time of year.
Since I'm diabetic, $230 a MONTH goes to insulin. Others can replace that with child care, school costs, kid's needs.
Other medicines and a couple supplements so I don't feel so crummy I'd lay down and die: $60
So I can actually eat more than ramen noodles 6 days a week- 60-80 for food, depending on what's left. Since I have all these fun health problems, I cannot just pop a sandwich in my mouth. With a kid, double that easily.
Humana Medicare D- $25.

And then, assorted medical bills, copays, and all that BS.

Know what I'm left with after all of this?

$110. That's IT. I admit to not being left screwed as I could be, but if I had to go it alone, I'd be up the creek with no paddle, no creek, and not even a ground plane to freaking exist on.

There are people who get less than me, far less than me, and some of them *work*. What with the wonderful wages in this country, minimum wage is a joke. And just fyi- it isn't JUST burger joints, either.

My answer, at least to the diabetic counselor when I was told about $230 insulin, which in my case would have been 1/4 of a bottle that would be useful- was "why not lower the price, instead of all these hoops I have to jump thru just to get to this sorry point?!"

Greed has made fools of us all.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I know, let's say triple because it sounds so much worse than saying increase it by $100.

my guess is that they'd either increase the other handouts enough to make up this increase (we'd probably see more food stamps being given and sold off or something) or the landlords would be forced to reduce their expectations and eat the loss or find themselves with some empty apartments . you can't get blood from a stone, although some will keep trying till they crash the whole danged economy!!

a reply to: Vector99


I don't know if they have cell phones or smoke, but I know I'd save 700 a month if I got rid of those 2 habits.

a reply to: MarlbBlack

Well, realistically that is none of anyones business but the ladies.

But lets look at some facts shall we?

First of all, condoms, though life saving in enough of the world to be an important facet of contraception, are well and broadly known to reduce the enjoyment of the act of lovemaking for both parties. 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. Further, contraceptive pills for use by women, are most of them known to increase the risk of ovarian cancers and a whole host of other very serious medical conditions, not to mention mood swings, and, with repeated use, permanent changes in hormone balance which could have negative consequences both in the short term, and in later life.

The physical benefits of sexual intercourse however, are many. From improving the operation of ones immune system, to lowering blood pressure, improving bladder control in women, to counting as exercise which lowers the risk of heart disease/attack, from being an effective method of relieving pain without medication, to reducing the risk of prostate trouble in men, from its ability to improve sleep, to its ability to reduce stress symptoms in the body, sexual intercourse, good quality intercourse mind you, is necessary for health, especially for those who cannot afford fancy doctors and visits to the hospital.

Realistically speaking, no one ever born to the Earth and living in an allegedly free country, is under any obligation whatsoever, to use a condom, to put themselves at a higher percentile risk of getting ovarian or other cancers, developing hormone imbalance related mental or physical illnesses, or indeed to deny themselves sex, just to please an ignorant minority of sexually regressive, backward facing, puritanical neanderthals.

So, these things being facts, not up for debate, but actualities about which we can change nothing without departing from reality, we also have to accept that eggs are GOING to get fertilised. Since no man, woman, or group of either, has the right to dictate how a woman is to deal with her situation if she becomes pregnant, we cannot accept limitations on abortion that do not have a STRICT medical basis, as opposed to any form of ethical or religious problem associated therewith.

BUT... if one is of the opinion, that abortion is wrong, one must be prepared to accept that if women cannot get abortions when they want them, then there are going to be an awful lot of children walking around, who will need feeding. Since we cannot limit access to sexual intercourse, only to those on good wages (and just to be clear, we cannot, and should not, because that would be inhuman and tyrannical), the money to feed and house these children will have to come from somewhere. Now then, we can be unrealistic and say "Well, if you have children, you should get a job, or a better job, with better money", and in an ideal world, with no crime, no risk, no danger and no threat, that would be perfectly fine. However, in the real world, work is not available just because people need it, and childcare does not cost little enough that the people in most need of it, can actually access it.

So, once again, the only correct response to any of these matters, is for busybodying, mindless, regressionist peons to keep their noses out of the affairs of people in the modern era. Neither the times we live in now, nor the times to come in the future, belong to the backward, the puritanical, those who involve faith where only science and reason have place.

They belong to those willing to embrace the present and the future, not those who would attempt to turn the clock back fifty years.