• The ResetEra Games of the Year Awards 2018 results are now live! Congratulations to all the winners!
  • Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

WaPost: 'HUD Secretary Ben Carson to propose TRIPLING rent for some low-income Americans'

OP
OP
Dreams-Visions
Oct 25, 2017
8,369
Miami, FL
Oh, someone wants to talk about the real world. Neat.

When's the last time you had to go homeless to save up the down payment for a new apartment? For me it was 2012, for about three months. It was super fun. Sorry about your squeezed pennies, I sure tried real hard not to be too much of a burden.

I've lived on the $8 wage. I've worked the 15 hours a week because there weren't more hours to be had, and because of a chronic illness. I needed every bit of help I could get, and I was fucking worth it. Everyone who is getting this help to put a roof over their goddamn head is an intrinsically valuable human being and they are ALL worth it.

You're lamenting that you can't afford health insurance and college at 40-hr/wk job? Be glad you get 40 hours. Be glad it's predictable, reliable, be fucking grateful that you CAN work 40 hours a week. Mitigate your expectations to be more realistic about the dire circumstances of inequality that characterize our nation, and the fact that it's only getting worse. Turn off the TV for a while because its depictions of affluence are toxic and unrealistic AF -- most people in the US aren't actually affording health insurance and college, it's not special to your income bracket.

Above all else, please reconsider pointing the finger at the most vulnerable echelons of society, and start directing your criticisms at the rich assholes in the 1% who believe they're entitled to hoard all the wealth even (especially?) if it means great swaths of humanity suffer for it. They profit from this dog-eat-dog nonsense when really, there's more than enough to go around.

Also check this out, I think it's pretty helpful for establishing perspective. I'm in the 48th percentile of income for my demographic. I am not exactly an anomaly in today's America. You're probably doing better than you think.

http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
very well stated.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,924
User warned: Derailing the thread.
This is going to be a giant turd in this thread but...

Democratic policies instituted at the state and municipal levels contribute far more to homelessness than this policy ever will.

Edit: basically local Democratic policies limit supply of new housing being built. Creating scarcity and increasing housing costs.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
2,532
To think so many Americans are so afraid of supposed socialist societies where the many work solely for the enjoyment and enrichment of the few.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,924
To think Americans are so afraid of supposed socialist societies where the many work solely for the enjoyment and enrichment of the few.
Housing policy and outcomes get considerably worse the more socialist the government gets. Today you can compare Tokyo and Houston to Signapore and Vienna. USSR cities often had 1 family per bedroom and 1 in the living room.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,172
Some places don't want you to have more hours because you'll qualify for partial benefits or if you're full time complete benefits. I know a mcasslickers deli I worked at years ago intentionally kept a bunch of young people like me on payroll so it was easy to limit hours. Otoh we were like 95% high school and young college kids. Otoh that seems like the sort of job a lot of poor people work trying to make an actual living .

I do not disagree with you.

And i think you know exactly what the solution to that problem is, Get a 2nd part time job while you work your experience and value up to a full time with benefits.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,228
NorCal
This is going to be a giant turd in this thread but...

Democratic policies instituted at the state and municipal levels contribute far more to homelessness than this policy ever will.

Edit: basically local Democratic policies limit supply of new housing being built. Creating scarcity and increasing housing costs.
Are they "Democratic policies" or are they "city policies" and cities are predominantly Democratic?
When Republicans are making policies in urban areas, are those policies resulting in more housing being built and less homelessness? I know plenty of people who vote Republican and don't want their property values to decline because there's more housing being built in their area... certainly Republicans are not known for wanting affordable housing built nearby that I'm aware of... NIMBYism seems fairly nonpartisan to me.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,924
Are they "Democratic policies" or are they "city policies" and cities are predominantly Democratic?
When Republicans are making policies in urban areas, are those policies resulting in more housing being built and less homelessness? I know plenty of people who vote Republican and don't want their property values to decline because there's more housing being built in their area... certainly Republicans are not known for wanting affordable housing built nearby that I'm aware of... NIMBYism seems fairly nonpartisan to me.
Best combination appears to be red state / blue city. But blue state/city is proving to be terrible for income inequality and homelessness.

I can't find the study but a Stanford econ paper proposed that just a 1% increase in SF housing supply would bring down market rate rent enough to house that city's homeless.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,450
Just cartoonishly evil nonsense. Tripling it? Not even trying to hide it. Not that they have to, but still. Especially when combined with how, oh certainly, the government definitely totally had the money to pay for his stupid overpriced furniture that he tooooooootally couldn't pay for himself as a hardworking, totally lives-and-dies-by-the-bootstraps-he-tells-others-to-pull-themselves-up-by type of guy, but the poor? Nah, they on the other hand are clearly paying too little and clearly, suddenly, there ain't money to go around anymore and so they on the other hand need their shit tripled. Just transparent evil nonsense all the way through.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,469
How familiar are you with the real world? There are a ton of people working forty hours per week that can’t afford medical insurance, food, college, etc. The poor and the rich get all kinds of help in America, while the middle class gets squeezed for every penny.


That 25% tax rate you initially mentioned applies to incomes of over $35k. Come at me again about the "real world."
 
Oct 25, 2017
265
United States
I do not disagree with you.

And i think you know exactly what the solution to that problem is, Get a 2nd part time job while you work your experience and value up to a full time with benefits.


You gotta be physically and mentally fit enough for it first. Which means either having access to affordable health care, and/or having the good fortune to simply be healthy to begin with. Your privilege is showing, and it does not appear to be adequately balanced out by your empathy or awareness.

Your statement also assumes that either job in question even offers full time/benefits. Or that your value will transfer between establishments whatsoever. These are real barriers to upward mobility faced by people working for some of the biggest employers of our average citizens: retail and restaurants.

If you work at McDonald's and decide to get a job at Wendy's, you're going to start at the same pay rate as everyone else regardless of any experience you may have, and they won't stand for you to serve two masters for long: in my experience, even part-time jobs won't hire people who are also working somewhere else. Inevitably the schedules conflict and they drop you like a hot deuce. From a corporate perspective, it's a waste of time to even sink training into someone like that, when you could just as easily find someone else with 0 current jobs who will take that measly 15 hours and wait on tenterhooks by the phone the rest of the week just in case they get called in to work.

GTFO with this bootstrap crap, lol
 
Oct 29, 2017
339
Ge
Best combination appears to be red state / blue city. But blue state/city is proving to be terrible for income inequality and homelessness.

I can't find the study but a Stanford econ paper proposed that just a 1% increase in SF housing supply would bring down market rate rent enough to house that city's homeless.
But this policy completely destroys affordable housing and intergrqted communities. You can buy center city land and rent at sub market cost to people who need assistance. And this policy helps to cover the gap for a land lord more then anything.
Fucking Ben Carson is the worst human ever
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,570
Well Section 8 is a rent subsidy that operates on a standard lease. So there really is nothing here that would be an additional force. Section 8 is by far the larger of the programs.

Public housing is pretty much only New York City at this point. And is generally speaking a corrupt labor shit-hole that spends three times as much on maintenance than other buildings built during the same period (not because of the residents, but the labor). It would be better just to gift the units to the residents at this point.
Are you thinking of Housing Choice Vouchers when you say section 8? Because Project-based Section 8 is just like Public Housing, only with private owners instead of public ownership and houses only slightly more people than public housing at a greater cost (well, likely the under-funding of Public Housing). It's a common enough mistake.


My own calculations from (budget and numbers)

Not sure where the railing against labor is coming from. Public housing labor costs (which do include day-to-day maintenance but not actual unit maintenance) are funded separately from capital maintenance/improvements. I'm certainly not going to defend any local public housing authority for their spending. But the under funding of Public Housing goes back to the 1950s when the middle class left it and the federal government decided to no longer to keep it up. Not to mention historical under-funding by Congress of the capital funding for Public Housing.

New York state does make up a plurality of Public Housing, at about 20 percent, but the remaining 80 percent are throughout the United States and house around 1,600,000 people (not households, as denoted above in my table).
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,304
$150 a month would literally have killed my family, we'd have been on the street.

What the hell is beating a few dimes out of the poor going to pay for? What the fuck are these services you need this money for, if not for these exact people?
Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate welfare. Poverty is a crime. Didn’t you know?
 

deussupreme

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
404
Oh, someone wants to talk about the real world. Neat.

When's the last time you had to go homeless to save up the down payment for a new apartment? For me it was 2012, for about three months. It was super fun. Sorry about your squeezed pennies, I sure tried real hard not to be too much of a burden.

I've lived on the $8 wage. I've worked the 15 hours a week because there weren't more hours to be had, and because of a chronic illness. I needed every bit of help I could get, and I was fucking worth it. Everyone who is getting this help to put a roof over their goddamn head is an intrinsically valuable human being and they are ALL worth it.

You're lamenting that you can't afford health insurance and college at 40-hr/wk job? Be glad you get 40 hours. Be glad it's predictable, reliable, be fucking grateful that you CAN work 40 hours a week. Mitigate your expectations to be more realistic about the dire circumstances of inequality that characterize our nation, and the fact that it's only getting worse. Turn off the TV for a while because its depictions of affluence are toxic and unrealistic AF -- most people in the US aren't actually affording health insurance and college, it's not special to your income bracket.

Above all else, please reconsider pointing the finger at the most vulnerable echelons of society, and start directing your criticisms at the rich assholes in the 1% who believe they're entitled to hoard all the wealth even (especially?) if it means great swaths of humanity suffer for it. They profit from this dog-eat-dog nonsense when really, there's more than enough to go around.

Also check this out, I think it's pretty helpful for establishing perspective. I'm in the 48th percentile of income for my demographic. I am not exactly an anomaly in today's America. You're probably doing better than you think.

http://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
Actually, I was homeless at one point. Also had one of those jobs stocking shelves 2-3 days per week. Motivated me to go to college. Homelessness didn’t bother me that much. Showered at the gym and used the restroom at night at one of those 24 hour grocery stores. Just motivated me to do better. I didn’t want any handouts and took full advantage of the opportunity to work hard and get myself into a better situation. Used the public library to figure out how to get into college and apply for financial aid. I’m in the top 5% of income earners now. And no, I’m not saying that people should be happily homeless.



That 25% tax rate you initially mentioned applies to incomes of over $35k. Come at me again about the "real world."
Are you implying that 35k is good money? Not sure exactly what you’re getting at(?). In your original post, you said that people earning 35k are doing waaaaay better. Again, you’re not in touch with the real world if you think 35k is waaaaaay better. At 35k, you’re living in an OK neighborhood, struggling to pay for health insurance, struggling with student loan payments if you have them, struggling to pay utilities in the winter, and probably don’t have much, if anything left, when it is all said and done. This is assuming that you don’t have kids with the cost of family health insurance and daycare expenses. Hardly, the waaaaaay better that you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
4,573
I love how when the middle class gets squeezed, it’s clearly because of the poor people below you and not the rich Assholes above you given themselves tax breaks at your expense.
 
Oct 27, 2017
108
It's not the super rich that's led to the current housing situation. It's middle class NIMBYism culture and people's wealth being tied to housing. Not to say we should get rid of housing vouchers but this is a problem liberals can help fix at the local level but it's not gonna happen because middle class white liberals aren't gonna do shit about it.

edit:

https://www.denverite.com/five-points-little-triangle-homes-50974/

Shit like this is why I can't take a certain group of liberals seriously when they start talking about wealth inequality.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
Are we really saying that homelessness is a motivator for self improvement in a thread about tripling rent for low income folks?
Not to mention try being homeless as a woman and see how far that showering in the gym shit gets you. You can miss me with that noise.

Only thing being homeless would do is make my already psycho ass worse.
 

deussupreme

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
404
Are we really saying that homelessness is a motivator for self improvement in a thread about tripling rent for low income folks?
People can and do become complacent. Sometimes, people do need a nudge to get into a better situation. Think about when parents cut their lazy adult kids off because they are tired of them being failures and mooching off of them. This situation isn’t all that different. Unless someone is disabled or too old to work, they really should be trying to get themselves into a better situation instead of just being complacent.
 
Oct 27, 2017
88
People can and do become complacent. Sometimes, people do need a nudge to get into a better situation. Think about when parents cut their lazy adult kids off because they are tired of them being failures and mooching off of them. This situation isn’t all that different. Unless someone is disabled or too old to work, they really should be trying to get themselves into a better situation instead of just being complacent.
Absolutely, but then a country has to have a proper jobs program for everyone to contribute... or start realistically talking about a UBI for people to not fall on their ass and be able to transition to part-time work.

There aren't enough jobs for everyone who is of working age -- period. There never will be. Of greater severity, there are not enough white-collar jobs to go around... and there never will be.

There are limits to mobility. It's simple numbers, really. The economic model has to be adjusted to actually use the majority of the workforce in a productive and helpful way.

As it is now, there is a large percentage (10-15 percent), which is growing, that has really no function in society. As the manufacturing base disappears, we just don't need everyone who is here.

North America in general needs to come to terms with that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,469
Are you implying that 35k is good money? Not sure exactly what you’re getting at(?). In your original post, you said that people earning 35k are doing waaaaay better. Again, you’re not in touch with the real world if you think 35k is waaaaaay better. At 35k, you’re living in an OK neighborhood, struggling to pay for health insurance, struggling with student loan payments if you have them, struggling to pay utilities in the winter, and probably don’t have much, if anything left, when it is all said and done. This is assuming that you don’t have kids with the cost of family health insurance and daycare expenses. Hardly, the waaaaaay better that you mentioned.
I'd expect someone as a top 5% earner to have better reading comprehension and be able to follow a few posts.

Let me refresh your memory:
-You are the one that argued that people working 40 hours are doing worse than those that subsist on public assistance.
-You are the one that argued that those in the 25% marginal tax rate are doing worse than those that subsist on public assistance.
-By extension, you are the one that argued that making $35k, the minimum AGI for a 25% marginal rate, is somehow equivalent OR WORSE than subsisting on public assistance.

The quality of life and outcomes are far better for the people above. You think people on assistance are eating lobster for breakfast and living in luxury apartments or something? You want to tell me about the real world when you compare living in an ok neighborhood to living in the projects in the hood? Miss me with that bullshit.
 

deussupreme

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
404
I'd expect someone as a top 5% earner to have better reading comprehension and be able to follow a few posts.

Let me refresh your memory:
-You are the one that argued that people working 40 hours are doing worse than those that subsist on public assistance.
-You are the one that argued that those in the 25% marginal tax rate are doing worse than those that subsist on public assistance.
-By extension, you are the one that argued that making $35k, the minimum AGI for a 25% marginal rate, is somehow equivalent OR WORSE than subsisting on public assistance.

The quality of life and outcomes are far better for the people above. You think people on assistance are eating lobster for breakfast and living in luxury apartments or something? You want to tell me about the real world when you compare living in an ok neighborhood to living in the projects in the hood? Miss me with that bullshit.
Since we are on the topic of comprehension, I suppose that when you read “there are people out there” in my post, you somehow got “all people” out of it instead of “some people”. Apparently, logic comprehension isn’t in your wheelhouse, as “some” =/= “all”. And anyone with reading comprehension would have deduced that a family paying for medical insurance, high utilities, and daycare could in fact, be doing worse than someone that has all of that provided for by the government. I’m not going dig up the articles, but there are people out there that ask for pay cuts or stay below a certain income to get those government benefits because they would be doing worse without them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,469
Since we are on the topic of comprehension, I suppose that when you read “there are people out there” in my post, you somehow got “all people” out of it instead of “some people”. Apparently, logic comprehension isn’t in your wheelhouse, as “some” =/= “all”. And anyone with reading comprehension would have deduced that a family paying for medical insurance, high utilities, and daycare could in fact, be doing worse than someone that has all of that provided for by the government. I’m not going dig up the articles, but there are people out there that ask for pay cuts or stay below a certain income to get those government benefits because they would be doing worse without them.
I'm not the one with the comprehension problem, playa.

-Paying for private insurance allows you to go to private practices whereas Medicaid/care almost always requires you to go to a neighborhood clinic or health center with the associated long wait times and quality of care.
-The cost of utilities are scaled by income and marginal utility comes into play. Someone might be paying $300 a month while earning 3k a month, but someone paying $80 while pulling in $500 in welfare is going to feel that hit a lot more.
-Daycare provided for by the government? Are you drunk?

Tell me more about this "real world" of yours where living in an ok neighborhood and paying for daycare is worse than growing up in the ghetto. If anything, all your posts indicate that you have no idea how public assistance works or what it's like to grow up on it. Like not a goddamn clue. I don't need to deduct anything when I know full well what the quality of life is between making your proposed minimum of $35k and being on food stamps while living in the projects of an urban ghetto. If you think the struggles of the former are worse, then you are on some serious shit.

It's like those HENRY's complaining about not having money because they have $10k vacations, maxed out retirement contributions, send their kids to private schools, live in an expensive home, have late model luxury cars, and eat out all the time. Hell, according to your logic, they can have it even worse than those on welfare if they have nothing left over or are in the red!
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2017
2,239
People can and do become complacent. Sometimes, people do need a nudge to get into a better situation. Think about when parents cut their lazy adult kids off because they are tired of them being failures and mooching off of them. This situation isn’t all that different. Unless someone is disabled or too old to work, they really should be trying to get themselves into a better situation instead of just being complacent.
You have never been homeless before. People need a home. Having some stability and knowing you have a roof over your head ACTUALLY motivates you more. this is fucking awful. especially when clearly you dont understand what it means for people to become successful with this thinly veiled "bootstraps" commentary.

People need oppertunites several of them to be successful. if there are a lack of opportunities or people have a low margin of error when then actually have one its the main reason they end up in bad situations. The hardest working people i know are very poor. Ive worked 3 jobs my damn self at one point and two jobs before that.

Comparing someone who was born into a good situation compared to people who start life without any stability in their lives is an awful awful and incorrect comparison. People on public assistance arent lazy adult kids being cut off.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,355
As someone who's been in a family that went from comfortably middle class to dirt poor saying there's not a difference while being broke as the two is laughable. Even when the medical bills were sky high and we couldn't do anything but stay in the house I still would take that over when we had money for shitty take out in that shitty ass roach infested hovel we moved too.I didn't have to worry about gun shots, people smoking crack and selling it while I tried to go upstairs and having to inhale all that garbage on my way up. Like no. No no no.

We didn't move to that shitty apartment til there was no fucking choice whatsoever. And my grandparents told me everyday that if they could've stayed there (being our house we had to sell not the apt) they would've. Between the gang banger nonsense, drug dealers, my siblings ending up falling into the wrong crowds and almost losing their lives over bullshit, my cousin *did* lose his life over bullshit. There's no fucking way.

Why anyone thinks being on welfare is something that people would do if there was a decent other choice baffles me. Welfare is shit. They tell you what to do, they treat you like shit. Very few people want to stay on that bullshit for a few extra dollars in their pocket along with the host of other nonsense that comes with it. And the having to purposely kneecap yourself to not go completely under is insanity. The gov't should want all its citizens to the point where they're contributing and stable instead of trying to rip the rugs underneath someone's feet.
 
Last edited:

deussupreme

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
404
You have never been homeless before. People need a home. Having some stability and knowing you have a roof over your head ACTUALLY motivates you more. this is fucking awful. especially when clearly you dont understand what it means for people to become successful with this thinly veiled "bootstraps" commentary.

People need oppertunites several of them to be successful. if there are a lack of opportunities or people have a low margin of error when then actually have one its the main reason they end up in bad situations. The hardest working people i know are very poor. Ive worked 3 jobs my damn self at one point and two jobs before that.

Comparing someone who was born into a good situation compared to people who start life without any stability in their lives is an awful awful and incorrect comparison. People on public assistance arent lazy adult kids being cut off.
Scroll up or view some of my older posts. I’ve been poor, homeless, and broke, yet managed to work my way up by taking advantage of all of the opportunities this country provides for me and everyone else willing to look for them. No one wants to admit it, but a good portion of the poor are high school dropouts or people that made costly mistakes early in adulthood. Of course, it isn’t always their faults, and there will always be exceptions to the rule; i.e. I’ve read an article somewhere about some parents intentionally keeping their kids out of school to stunt their mental growth in hopes of getting social security disability for them.
 
Last edited:

deussupreme

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
404
I'm not the one with the comprehension problem, playa.

-Paying for private insurance allows you to go to private practices whereas Medicaid/care almost always requires you to go to a neighborhood clinic or health center with the associated long wait times and quality of care.
-The cost of utilities are scaled by income and marginal utility comes into play. Someone might be paying $300 a month while earning 3k a month, but someone paying $80 while pulling in $500 in welfare is going to feel that hit a lot more.
-Daycare provided for by the government? Are you drunk?

Tell me more about this "real world" of yours where living in an ok neighborhood and paying for daycare is worse than growing up in the ghetto. If anything, all your posts indicate that you have no idea how public assistance works or what it's like to grow up on it. Like not a goddamn clue. I don't need to deduct anything when I know full well what the quality of life is between making your proposed minimum of $35k and being on food stamps while living in the projects of an urban ghetto. If you think the struggles of the former are worse, then you are on some serious shit.

It's like those HENRY's complaining about not having money because they have $10k vacations, maxed out retirement contributions, send their kids to private schools, live in an expensive home, have late model luxury cars, and eat out all the time. Hell, according to your logic, they can have it even worse than those on welfare if they have nothing left over or are in the red!

You know what, since you couldn’t be bothered with logic or facts, I went ahead and found one of the articles for your pleasure:

“Working single dad takes pay cut to keep childcare benefits”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/...kes-pay-cut-keep-childcare-benefits-v15998838

“He fell victim to what is known as the "Cliff Effect," when a small increase in a family's income can lead to an abrupt termination of an essential public benefit like food stamps, health insurance or child care assistance.”

Now let that ether burn slow.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,554
You know what, since you couldn’t be bothered with logic or facts, I went ahead and found one of the articles for your pleasure:

“Working single dad takes pay cut to keep childcare benefits”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/...kes-pay-cut-keep-childcare-benefits-v15998838

“He fell victim to what is known as the "Cliff Effect," when a small increase in a family's income can lead to an abrupt termination of an essential public benefit like food stamps, health insurance or child care assistance.”

Now let that ether burn slow.
That's not ether.

You can't extrapolate that anecdote to include the entire American population.
 
Nov 6, 2017
1,911
The SPM (supplemental poverty measure), which takes tax expenditures and the value of benefits into account, has been demonstrated to be a better predictor of food insecurity than the official poverty measure. So it's like that some families are experiencing hardship because their household income, despite being above the official poverty level, can't compensate for the lack of government assistance or their tax burden.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096937/
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,469
You know what, since you couldn’t be bothered with logic or facts, I went ahead and found one of the articles for your pleasure:

“Working single dad takes pay cut to keep childcare benefits”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/...kes-pay-cut-keep-childcare-benefits-v15998838

“He fell victim to what is known as the "Cliff Effect," when a small increase in a family's income can lead to an abrupt termination of an essential public benefit like food stamps, health insurance or child care assistance.”

Now let that ether burn slow.
How's that ether? It has nothing to do with your original example of someone earning enough to be at the 25% marginal tax rate being in a worse position than someone on public assistance.

You also didn't address any of my points. That article was a poor attempt at a deflection.

I'll say it again: using your logic, you could argue that someone making $170k annually could be worse off than someone on public assistance if they don't have anything leftover at the end of the month.
 
Last edited:
Apr 20, 2018
138
Topic title says rent could be raised by as much as 3 times.

Oh fuck, that isn't good at all, fuck Ben Carson!!!


Now, the actual facts would be raising the rent from $50 to $150...

Yea ok, that's completely reasonable. If this is you or someone you know, wow. Get a job, anything. This is ridiculous.

This is going to be a giant turd in this thread but...

Democratic policies instituted at the state and municipal levels contribute far more to homelessness than this policy ever will.

Edit: basically local Democratic policies limit supply of new housing being built. Creating scarcity and increasing housing costs.
Well yes that's true. NIMBYs tend to always be the progressives fortunate enough to not live in the South, were segregation is against the law.
 
Dec 31, 2017
177
What’s the problem with 35%? Isn’t 30%-40% of income what most people pay for housing anyway? I see no issue with this, if I am reading it correctly.
Most people who are poor and needing some kind of assistance from the government to attempt to get by get much, much less than they would need to even pay cheap rent.