Generally well said, but I would take issue with the idea that there's any sort of line. When the government "boosts" industry, it's always economic cronyism. They don't dole out money to industries that aren't in the sack with politicians. Every industry that got money in the TARP bailout, auto bailout, etc. had armies of lobbyists and had donated ungodly sums of money to federal officials for decades and in the case of the financial industry, centuries.
I think you missed my point. My point was that YOU start many, many threads like this about some poor criminal abusing the system and stealing from taxpayers, to the tune of hundreds, or even thousands of dollars. Really seems to get your goat. But you don't seem to give two super shits about people who are already wealthy, but steal millions, tens/hundreds of millions from taxpayers. Not a single thread about those guys.
MrD Can you point me to some statistics that show people whose homes we taxpayers have bought or subsidized for 15 year started paying for them on their own at the end of the 15 years( or even sooner)? That these people all of a sudden were making enough money to cover the mortgage, insurances taxes and utilities? If anyone qualified for section 8 they would also qualify for Medicaid, food stamps TANF ,school lunches and /or WIC where applicable obamaphones and in many states cars. How much money would someone have to make in the real world to pay for all that? Do you in all sincerity think many people who have lived pretty well off the taxpayer for 15 years will now go out and get a job to replace all those bennies? Doing what? Where after 15 years of making below the minimum to qualify for all those bennies could one go to work to replace the bennies? We do nothing to incentivize people to work hard and become responsible. We do just the opposite. Buying houses for them is nuts. Keep in mind I am not suggesting we evict people who truly sincerely need this help.
Chango I am pretty sure you can start a thread on any topic you like and make your case on it. Do that instead of being so worried about what other people are posting.
There may be a permanent underclass, but they are not the ones likely to apply Section 8 money towards a home purchase. Of the 5 people I knew who had public assistance for housing 15 ago or longer, 3 are in affluent 2 income housholds bringing in $120-$160k per year. Had they bought houses or continued renting, none of the 5 would have remained eligible for Section 8 housing allowances, food stamps, etc. more than 2-3 years while finishing college, getting jobs, getting married, etc.
Croc The people you mentioned are exactly the people for whom the programs should be helping those and really disabled. Able bodied people who have hit a rough patch but who WORK through it or who are genuinely disabled( not for instance people in PR who can't speak English).
If I start a topic "Do you care more about rich criminals who steal millions or poor criminals who steal hundreds?" -- will you contribute?
Chango. I might if you provide facts and it catches my interest. Isn't that the great thing about this forum that Dion and others carried forward? We can exchange thoughts on any subject as we wish > Or not. You seem really obsessed with this. One topic does not preclude another nor does one topic make another irrelevant. I hope we have moved beyond the well since Bush did it it is ok for BO to do it. So I say go for it. Start your topic and see where it goes.
I don't have statistics one way or the other, and my guess is that you don't either. However, you're arguing a false choice. The issue isn't whether or not there will be a housing assistance program but of what form that program will take. You want to see people crammed into apartments full of reprobates. I don't. I think that's bad for the children whose parents are on public housing assistance. Furthermore, the taxpayer is on the hook either way. They lose regardless, but if one person ends up ultimately buying his home after 15 years, the taxpayer wins. If literally nobody does, the taxpayer loses but no worse than he would have lost if the ownership program had never existed. As for the argument that we're disincentivizing work with too much welfare, I think you need to learn more about the program. Unless you are elderly or disabled, (1) it has a minimum income requirement; (2) welfare benefits do not count toward that income requirement; and (3) one or more people who would own the house have to work full time and have been working full time for a full year prior to commencement of benefits. There are other requirements as well, but these pertain directly to the incentive issue. What this should tell you is that this is not a program for bums and strongly incentivizes work, because you can't get it without working. Furthermore, it's a program for the working poor, which means it's corporate welfare for Walmart and McDonald's as much as it is anything else. That's also true for the rental assistance, but this one gives the recipient something to be proud of and a chance for their kids to leave the ghetto. I think that's a good thing.
Mr D let's list specifics Minimum income requirements? that the applicants must have income of 2000 hrs a year at federal minimum wage, $14.500.00. With that income they also qualify for all the other programs listed above in other post but the value of bennies is not part of their income. much do you think those bennies are worth? and do they add to quality of living? How much more would one have to make to replace bennies? One family member must be working full time which is 30 hours a week. 30 hours How many will work harder and make more money so they can contribute more toward the mortgage and lose some of their benefits? How much is the EITC alone worth? 6k? Just as I can't find any stats on success and failure of this program neither can I find out what happens at the end of 15 years. It is not defined BUT there is a catchall phrase that says the Sec can over ride any requirement .Do these people get to stay in homes and revert to section 8 rent? We do know the default rate of sub primes loans of low income working people during crises was high and categorically the conditions of the defaulted houses was deplorable ( NO I am not saying they caused the crisis and NO I am not saying middle and higher income people did not also default and trash houses) BTW not all section 8 housing are slum apartments. In Dallas the ratio is pretty even. Plus most cities have torn down large old slums and build new more attractive places. Yes abusing owners should be punished. But we should not repeat mistakes. And we should not create classes of people who have no incentive to try harder. Home ownership should be something to work and sacrifice for.
Again, you're arguing a false choice. Every criticism you're making about incentives could be made against rental assistance. However, unlike most programs, this one requires actual work - maybe not as much as you'd like, but it's better than nothing. You're correct that not all section 8 apartments are slums. However, my issue isn't with the facilities. Most homes that people would buy with the vouchers aren't going to be very nice places. My issue is with the social and cultural problems associated with the apartment life. If you put a single mom in a Sec. 8 apartment, she and her kids are going to be surrounded by and living in close quarters with bums - antisocial kids of other single moms, loser guys trying to bang their mom, drugs, and everything else that makes home owners not want Sec. 8 apartment complexes to open up nearby. That's not a good setting for children. If they can live in homes they have a much better chance of living in a normal neighborhood with normal families. Home ownership should be something to work for, but that doesn't mean we should make bad decisions and put children in destructive settings to make sure that it is.
