Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why work hard to be able to afford a nice home in a nice neighborhood when you can just get a free, all-expenses paid check from the government?
It isn't free. It's scaled to income.
This goes to the heart of the issue in determining benefits and such.
The liberals lie (as you would expect) when they tell you some woman and her 3 kids are living in poverty. They reason they lie is because they do not include the wages and assets of the man living with her.
When the 2020 Census comes round, do yourself a favor and sign up. It's fun. It really is. Volunteer to go into housing projects and other areas were subsidized (Section 8) housing is prevalent.
What you will see is a woman, with 2-5 children fathered by 1-5 different men, and a man living there as well, who has probably fathered at least one of the children.
When she applies for benefits like Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, Medicaid, etc, only her income, which is $ZERO is taken into consideration.
There is no attempt to determine if she receives income from another source, like a man living with her who has a job.
She benefits from his income, and his income is 100% disposable, because you the tax-payer subsidize her life-style.
The way to put a stop that is to force them under penalty of perjury to declare other sources of income and assets, and then kick them out of these programs with a life-time ban, when they get caught in lie, plus make them pay back all the services they got.
So, yeah, if 100% of my income was disposable, I could afford a $600/month car payment too.
This goes to the heart of the issue in determining benefits and such.
The liberals lie (as you would expect) when they tell you some woman and her 3 kids are living in poverty. They reason they lie is because they do not include the wages and assets of the man living with her.
When the 2020 Census comes round, do yourself a favor and sign up. It's fun. It really is. Volunteer to go into housing projects and other areas were subsidized (Section 8) housing is prevalent.
What you will see is a woman, with 2-5 children fathered by 1-5 different men, and a man living there as well, who has probably fathered at least one of the children.
When she applies for benefits like Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, Medicaid, etc, only her income, which is $ZERO is taken into consideration.
There is no attempt to determine if she receives income from another source, like a man living with her who has a job.
She benefits from his income, and his income is 100% disposable, because you the tax-payer subsidize her life-style.
The way to put a stop that is to force them under penalty of perjury to declare other sources of income and assets, and then kick them out of these programs with a life-time ban, when they get caught in lie, plus make them pay back all the services they got.
So, yeah, if 100% of my income was disposable, I could afford a $600/month car payment too.
And many of these women with kids that are living on Section 8 are reporting their boyfriends or husbands income, to the housing authority and to their welfare office.
Yes some are scamming and claiming they are single, but not all. And those that are scamming if they get caught can be liable to pay back everything.
Since when is it "against CD posting rules" to use other people's first hand experiences as a refrence?
I never said that all section 8 tenants were bad tenants. I never said that I don't rent to section 8ers. Just relaying what others have said.
Where did I say it was against the posting rules?
You are being completely dishonest (no surprise there) when you attribute the quote "against CD posting rules" to me. It is against the TOS to purposely and maliciously attribute statements not made.
Anecdote does not equal data.
Facts are a little better than fiction.
This goes to the heart of the issue in determining benefits and such.
The liberals lie (as you would expect) when they tell you some woman and her 3 kids are living in poverty. They reason they lie is because they do not include the wages and assets of the man living with her.
When the 2020 Census comes round, do yourself a favor and sign up. It's fun. It really is. Volunteer to go into housing projects and other areas were subsidized (Section 8) housing is prevalent.
What you will see is a woman, with 2-5 children fathered by 1-5 different men, and a man living there as well, who has probably fathered at least one of the children.
When she applies for benefits like Food Stamps, WIC, Section 8, Medicaid, etc, only her income, which is $ZERO is taken into consideration.
There is no attempt to determine if she receives income from another source, like a man living with her who has a job.
She benefits from his income, and his income is 100% disposable, because you the tax-payer subsidize her life-style.
The way to put a stop that is to force them under penalty of perjury to declare other sources of income and assets, and then kick them out of these programs with a life-time ban, when they get caught in lie, plus make them pay back all the services they got.
So, yeah, if 100% of my income was disposable, I could afford a $600/month car payment too.
Now that's Real Talk.
But don't forget:
-Income from small-time narcotics or "weed" sales
-Return scams (shoplift a small clothing item then return to a different store in the chain for credit or a refund).
-Three person pickpocket scam (Shoulder tap, pick, handoff...)
I read this article when we got the paper this morning. Absolutely furious.
The woman in the article acts as though she is entitled to the nicest house possible,
turning up her nose at some places, when she is on unemployment
and
also has her unemployed 24-yr-old daughter and the daughter's 5-year-old living with them.
Oh, and some dogs.
She also refers to "men walking down the street in shorts and tank tops" as "street punks."
Hmmmm. Passing judgement on the way people walking down the street look.
But that would not go over so well if it were a non-minority commenting on those walking around Section 8 housing, would it?
She "puts on her white voice" when she answers the phone; that's gold, right there.
This article is a disgrace and should not have been given the space it was in the post, prominently on the front page, and taking up an entire other page inside.
This is, quite simply, the pathetic story of an unemployed leech living better than some of the working class, because of entitlements.
God bless America. Yeah.
All great points, I completely agree with you. Our gov't has created this sense of entitlement through handing out entitlements, and the non-working leeches of society will continue to take advantage as long as they're allowed. That's the thing, they're allowed to do this b/c the gov't doesn't care. I'm trying to figure out if the Dems just want to keep their base or if they truly do not have enough resources to filter out the ne'er-do-wells.
You bandy about your opinion as though it were fact.
Please provide some credible links to your assertion that Not all but a majority of section 8 renters are bad teneants.
I know some people who were raised in abject poverty who understand basic English spelling and grammar.
You're using CD as a source. You're kidding, right?
Why else would you think that many ads (not just on C-D, which I didn't even know had a rental section) explicitly say "no section 8"? Or many websites for apartments and property management companies? It's b/c the tenants have no stake in keeping the property clean and in good condition.
Where did I say it was against the posting rules?
You are being completely dishonest (no surprise there) when you attribute the quote "against CD posting rules" to me. It is against the TOS to purposely and maliciously attribute statements not made.
Anecdote does not equal data.
Facts are a little better than fiction.
How about some stats for your assertion?
How am I being dishonest with you?
You contradict yourself in your own post...you want hard data and stats to support the first hand experiences of others regarding section 8 tenants yet in the same breath you say that facts are little better than fiction.
There are no stats ANYWHERE that state weather or not a landlord perfers section 8 tenants over non section 8 tenants. Who would keep stats on that kind of stuff? The only information that is available is the first hand experience FROM landlords.
What kind of stats do you want? I'm sure I can come up with something....
And many of these women with kids that are living on Section 8 are reporting their boyfriends or husbands income, to the housing authority and to their welfare office.
Yes some are scamming and claiming they are single, but not all. And those that are scamming if they get caught can be liable to pay back everything.
No. When these women get pregnant they seek out the advice of whether or not the father should be put on the birth certificate. If he is that makes them eligible as part of the income of the household.
What do you think the mothers say?
When you subsidize bad habits and poor decisions, like bad parents feeding their helplessly drug addicted child, you're subsidizing that persons bad habits. This should be common sense since they contain all the same words in the same orders et al.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What kind of stats do you want? I'm sure I can come up with something....
