Current Events > Ben Carson strikes back at critics of rent reform: 'Gives poor peopIe a way out'

(+) Yeah! (+)

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is firing back at critics who claim his proposal to reform federal government housing subsidies is an example of the Trump administrations war on poor people, as one congressional Democrat put it.

I would say its just the opposite, It is our attempt to give poor people a way out of poverty.

Carson is proposing overhauling the HUD programs that help 4.7 million low-income, disabled and elderly people pay rent. He argues that the current system discourages work, discourages stable families, is overly complex and is financially unsustainable. He also calls for increasing minimum monthly payments from $50 to $150 a month, and having households contribute 35 percent of their income toward rent instead of 30 percent

Carson said he believes people on government assistance will welcome his plan if its not presented by hysterical people who are saying, These people hate you and theyre trying to balance the budget on your back and they dont care.

"My best message is to ask yourself: What is your goal in life, and what is your goal for your children? And how can you best achieve that, are you going to achieve that under the current system, or is there a better system that might be more effective?

Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has railed against the rent increases, calling Carsons proposal an immoral, ill-advised proposal and the latest example of the Trump administrations war on poor people.

Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, has railed against the rent increases, calling Carsons proposal immoral, ill-advised proposal and the latest example of the Trump Administrations war on poor people.

Carson's proposal also includes work requirements, which he says will incentivize people. He says his proposal will encourage family unification by not keeping another earner, like a spouse, from living with a family and making the household ineligible for subsidies. Were removing all those kinds of perverse disincentives,

As he developed the policy, Carson said, he has thought of the people he grew up with in Detroit who lived in government housing.

They were very, very smart, clever, but they were trapped in a system. They dont know any other lifestyle. And thats not necessarily their fault. I think thats our fault. When I say our fault, I mean the government. Were the ones who created these situations. And I think we have an obligation to fix them.

Carsons proposal would need to be passed by Congress. He says the released plan is the beginning of a conversation.

In recent months, Carson has faced other criticism at HUD, amid reports that a $31,000 dining room set had been ordered for his office to replace aging furniture. He eventually canceled the order amid an outcry over the high cost.

It took a month to actually find out who actually signed off on that, But the important thing is there were financial controls that were necessary that were not in place. We have put those in place. And the other important thing is that the order was cancelled with no consequences. So not a single penny that the taxpayers have to pay.

Carson, who ran in the 2016 Republican primary for president, worked as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins before retiring and did not have a background in housing before President Trump tapped him for the job.

I dont know if 'enjoy' would be the right word, But I recognize that this is something that is critically important. Weve got to change this. Because the current system is not sustainable.

Full Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/ben-carson-hits-back-at-hysterical-critics-says-rent-reform-gives-poor-people-way-out-poverty.html



tl:dr: Bootstraps.
---

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

its changing rent from 50 to 150 dollars a month...

I would be more okay with this if it actually did something to address why people have to rely on government subsidized housing in the first place.

It's about damn time that we require some of these people to start paying their fair share
---

treewojima posted...

I would be more okay with this if it actually did something to address why people have to rely on government subsidized housing in the first place.

The argument is that they rely on it because it is there so they don't seek alternatives.

Teach a man to fish etc
---

Oh, I get the argument, I just don't believe it works in a vacuum.

Helping poor people become less poor by asking for more of their money. The math just doesn't work, man.

The logic here is that if you take away the carrot, people will work harder to compensate, but is there any evidence backing that up? Or do people just get poorer, or stay neutral?
---

M_Live posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

its changing rent from 50 to 150 dollars a month...

Where do people pay $50 a month for rent? And that doesn't change the whole "the government should not fucking touch people's rent" aspect. Fuck this guy tbqh.

Holy shit your ignorance of this situation is utterly astounding. If you even bothered to read the op you would know that HUD is a government organization that provides housing for poor people. "Touching people's rent" is literally the sole purpose of that organization.
---

M_Live posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

its changing rent from 50 to 150 dollars a month...

Where do people pay $50 a month for rent? And that doesn't change the whole "the government should not fucking touch people's rent" aspect. Fuck this guy tbqh.

Government housing

dirtycommunist posted...

Helping poor people become less poor by asking for more of their money. The math just doesn't work, man.

This.
---

COVxy posted...

dirtycommunist posted...

Helping poor people become less poor by asking for more of their money. The math just doesn't work, man.

This.

The idea is that they're changing things so that poor people are not reliant upon the hand that feeds and have incentives to make a living for themselves instead of just accepting the shitty lot they have in life because it's stable.

I'm skeptical, but it's not as simple as just saying one thing and expecting it to do the exact opposite.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

The idea is that they're changing things so that poor people are not reliant upon the hand that feeds and have incentives to make a living for themselves instead of just accepting the shitty lot they have in life because it's stable.

I'm skeptical, but it's not as simple as just saying one thing and expecting it to do the exact opposite.

I know, I addressed the logic of it in the rest of my post.I'm skeptical too, which is why I'd like to see evidence this either helps people more, or at least does no harm. If HUD has the evidence, let's see it. If not, maybe they should start with a pilot to see how it works...
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

The idea is that they're changing things so that poor people are not reliant upon the hand that feeds and have incentives to make a living for themselves instead of just accepting the shitty lot they have in life because it's stable.

Yeah, trust me, poor people don't want to be poor.
---

"If we give you a little more cancer, you'll work harder and beat it."
---

I always hear this they need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. Some people dont have boots. Some people dont have boots. - Sunny Hostin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHOezNp6Oo" data-time="

COVxy posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

The idea is that they're changing things so that poor people are not reliant upon the hand that feeds and have incentives to make a living for themselves instead of just accepting the shitty lot they have in life because it's stable.

Yeah, trust me, poor people don't want to be poor.

Likely

But many also don't want to be not poor if it means having to actually hold a steady job

I've met these type

Antifar posted...

"If we give you a little more cancer, you'll work harder and beat it."

That's a weak metaphor
---

Spooking posted...

Roshon posted...

I always hear this they need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. Some people dont have boots. Some people dont have boots. - Sunny Hostin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHOezNp6Oo" data-time="

I had to lol at 00:35. Whoppi claims her mother had to work two jobs. How can you mismanage money so badly that you still can't afford $50 rent... even with two jobs!? Something is up. Buying candy, soda, chips and other luxury items daily? Sounds to me like some folks are taking advantage of the tax payers.

To be fair, "Don't have kids and you're less likely to be in poverty" is fair enough
---

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

Good job not reading anything about the situation and making a terrible shitpost.
---

M_Live posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

its changing rent from 50 to 150 dollars a month...

Where do people pay $50 a month for rent? And that doesn't change the whole "the government should not fucking touch people's rent" aspect. Fuck this guy tbqh.

The point you are missing is that the government is already touching their rent by paying more than 95% of it. If you go from having the government pay 95% of your rent to having them pay 85% of it they are touching it less not more.

The $50 figure is basically there just to try and get the people living on public assistance used to the concept of paying bills and I could imagine that with rising costs and wages it has become such a trivial amount that it no longer serves that purpose well.

Poll is dead even
---

We shouldnt help the poor.

There shouldnt be a minimum wage for low skilled jobs.

Low skilled jobs still need to be done.

Hmmmmmmmm
---

poor people feel trapped in poverty but raising their rent will finally let them break free
---

People are more willing to work and try to improve their lives of they get something good out of it. People need to see how their lives can improve and be motivated to do so.

Really what if a brilliant black man was not given the chance to go to the college he wanted and unable to get a medical degree and become a brilliant surgeon. What if those options were not even open to him? We would have no Ben Carson.
---

this just sounds mean :/

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Well that's one way to fuck someone's life up I guess.

Especially if they're a rape victim
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Carson's proposal also includes work requirements, which he says will incentivize people. He says his proposal will encourage family unification by not keeping another earner, like a spouse, from living with a family and making the household ineligible for subsidies. Were removing all those kinds of perverse disincentives,

The very fact that they're calling this a "war on poor people" means it's probably complete bullshit and there's some actual value in the proposal. We're all aware that welfare traps exist where you stand to lose out on all your benefits for making a tiny bit above the threshold, so if this includes things like phased payouts and new rules to prevent, as mentioned above, a second income from completely blowing the bank, this may actually be a beneficial thing.

Could it be total crap? Sure. Carson isn't a very trustworthy person given the kind of crap he said during the primaries, but the unwillingness to even consider changing a system that very clearly doesn't work is simply a sign of a refusal to cooperate with people you've decided are the enemy, even at the cost of the people you claim to protect.
---

Carson's proposal also includes work requirements, which he says will incentivize people. He says his proposal will encourage family unification by not keeping another earner, like a spouse, from living with a family and making the household ineligible for subsidies. Were removing all those kinds of perverse disincentives,

So long as welfare cliffs exist, so will absentee fathers.

M_Live posted...

Fam_Fam posted...

M_Live posted...

Why the fuck should the government have the right to step in and say "actually, people should pay more money for rent?" Rent prices in NY are already ridiculous.

its changing rent from 50 to 150 dollars a month...

Where do people pay $50 a month for rent? And that doesn't change the whole "the government should not fucking touch people's rent" aspect. Fuck this guy tbqh.

I can't shitpost as hard on purpose as you've just done accidentally... bravo, sir. Bravo.

UnfairRepresent posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Well that's one way to fuck someone's life up I guess.

Especially if they're a rape victim

Walking criminal factories live getting free shit from the government. If they cant even bother to keep their legs sped, they dont deserve it.

There are a ton of women out there who get a government pay check for having kids they cant afford.

And stop with the rape victim argument. Thats just a way to silence dissenting opinions.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

Walking criminal factories live getting free shit from the government. If they cant even bother to keep their legs sped, they dont deserve it.

But I like sped legs.

And you do realize putting desperate mothers into worse situations won't do anything to hinder crime? Quite the opposite.

There are a ton of women out there who get a government pay check for having kids they cant afford.

And taking that assistance away would help because....

And stop with the rape victim argument. Thats just a way to silence dissenting opinions.

Yeah incredibly valid counter arguments have a tendancy to do that
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

The mistake here, is taking away the housing.
Everyone involved would be better off if it was the child being surrendered.

fire_bolt posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty

Outside of rape situations, why is it the government's fault and not the mother's fault for the kid's life?
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

The mistake here, is taking away the housing.
Everyone involved would be better off if it was the child being surrendered.

Great idea, put a kid into an already overburdened foster system that isn't able to manage the kids it already has. That'll help end poverty
---

I mean, killing yourself or turning to crime and getting thrown in jail are technically ways out of living in the projects.
---

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty

Outside of rape situations, why is it the government's fault and not the mother's fault for the kid's life?

Ok. It's the mother's fault? Now what? We damn the kid in hopes that it will shame his homeless single mother into giving him a good life? Or do we just have the kid suffer in his situation until we throw his mother into prison for being an unfit parent and toss him into an orphanage? What is the endgame here? Fuck people over until we finally get humanity to stop having sex unless its for procreation between two loving, financially sound adults?
---

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty

Outside of rape situations, why is it the government's fault and not the mother's fault for the kid's life?

You're missing the point. How does kicking the mother out in any way benefit ANYONE in this situation? The government isn't out any more money for housing and both the mother and child would be significantly better off having somewhere to live rather than being homeless. At that point all you're doing is punishing the mother for having unprotected sex and doing it in such a way that is directly putting the child at risk. Its asinine.

EDIT:

This has always been the conservative manifesto on children, however. Doesn't want anyone to have the option to abort but also doesn't want to do a single thing to help the kid once its born. A child's life only matters in utero.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

is financially unsustainable.

Well, that's certainly true.
---

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty

Outside of rape situations, why is it the government's fault and not the mother's fault for the kid's life?

You're missing the point. How does kicking the mother out in any way benefit ANYONE in this situation? The government isn't out any more money for housing and both the mother and child would be significantly better off having somewhere to live rather than being homeless. At that point all you're doing is punishing the mother for having unprotected sex and doing it in such a way that is directly putting the child at risk. Its asinine.

EDIT:

This has always been the conservative manifesto on children, however. Doesn't want anyone to have the option to abort but also doesn't want to do a single thing to help the kid once its born. A child's life only matters in utero.

To paraphrase an insane clown: It's not about bettering society. It's about sending a message.

You think children are human beings? They're just lessons to teach our godless society to stop having sex
---

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

I dont mind helping elderly and disabled people.

But as soon as someone gets pregnant when their housing is already being paid for - they need to lose it.

Great idea, completely ruin some kid's life by making his mother homeless. That'll sure help stop poverty

Outside of rape situations, why is it the government's fault and not the mother's fault for the kid's life?

You're missing the point. How does kicking the mother out in any way benefit ANYONE in this situation? The government isn't out any more money for housing and both the mother and child would be significantly better off having somewhere to live rather than being homeless. At that point all you're doing is punishing the mother for having unprotected sex and doing it in such a way that is directly putting the child at risk. Its asinine.

EDIT:

This has always been the conservative manifesto on children, however. Doesn't want anyone to have the option to abort but also doesn't want to do a single thing to help the kid once its born. A child's life only matters in utero.

Oh, I fully support abortion. I think if you can't afford to have a kid, don't have a kid. However, at some point we need to get off this idea that the government's job is to prevent anyone anywhere from suffering. It's not sustainable as an ideology, and while the government should do everything in its power to minimize it, letting people have unlimited kids when they don't have the financial means to support them isn't one of them.

You make the consequences known, and you give people the choice as to whether they want to risk them or not. Nobody is forcing the mother to have a kid, and while it doesn't help her or her kid to kick her out, actions have consequences. Worried about the kid? Put the kid in a home, up for adoption.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Worried about the kid? Put the kid in a home, up for adoption.

Cool story, but there are already far more kids in home and up for adoption than there are people to care for them. Rather than making two problems worse (making the mother homeless and adding yet another child to an overburdened system) a better solution would be TO TRY AND HELP THE MOTHER BE A GOOD PROVIDER with things like job training and skill building rather than a handout that just bandaids the problem
---

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Worried about the kid? Put the kid in a home, up for adoption.

Cool story, but there are already far more kids in home and up for adoption than there are people to care for them. Rather than making two problems worse (making the mother homeless and adding yet another child to an overburdened system) a better solution would be TO TRY AND HELP THE MOTHER BE A GOOD PROVIDER with things like job training and skill building rather than a handout that just bandaids the problem

Humor me with a hypothetical: at what point in your narrative here would the woman ever be held responsible for her decisions? Just make something up, I don't care what. I just want a sense of how you perceive individual agency and the consequences of bad decisions.
---

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Worried about the kid? Put the kid in a home, up for adoption.

Cool story, but there are already far more kids in home and up for adoption than there are people to care for them. Rather than making two problems worse (making the mother homeless and adding yet another child to an overburdened system) a better solution would be TO TRY AND HELP THE MOTHER BE A GOOD PROVIDER with things like job training and skill building rather than a handout that just bandaids the problem

Humor me with a hypothetical: at what point in your narrative here would the woman ever be held responsible for her decisions? Just make something up, I don't care what. I just want a sense of how you perceive individual agency and the consequences of bad decisions.

Show me where there's a bad decision that needs to be held accountable for.

See, and that's the REAL issue here. You're pushing the narrative that a single mother living in poverty should not be allowed to have children. You're trying to essentially create a pay wall for child birth. The real thing here? WE SHOULDN'T BE WAITING UNTIL SINGLE WOMEN BECOME SINGLE MOTHERS TO TRY TO LIFT THEM OUT OF POVERTY.

I also note you've made no attempt to punish the father in such a way. Funny how that works, takes two people to create a child but you only want to punish the one who has to keep it.
---

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

fire_bolt posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Worried about the kid? Put the kid in a home, up for adoption.

Cool story, but there are already far more kids in home and up for adoption than there are people to care for them. Rather than making two problems worse (making the mother homeless and adding yet another child to an overburdened system) a better solution would be TO TRY AND HELP THE MOTHER BE A GOOD PROVIDER with things like job training and skill building rather than a handout that just bandaids the problem

Humor me with a hypothetical: at what point in your narrative here would the woman ever be held responsible for her decisions? Just make something up, I don't care what. I just want a sense of how you perceive individual agency and the consequences of bad decisions.

Show me where there's a bad decision that needs to be held accountable for.

See, and that's the REAL issue here. You're pushing the narrative that a single mother living in poverty should not be allowed to have children. You're trying to essentially create a pay wall for child birth. The real thing here? WE SHOULDN'T BE WAITING UNTIL SINGLE WOMEN BECOME SINGLE MOTHERS TO TRY TO LIFT THEM OUT OF POVERTY.

I also note you've made no attempt to punish the father in such a way. Funny how that works, takes two people to create a child but you only want to punish the one who has to keep it.

Choosing to have a kid you know you can't afford.

EDIT: Also, I agree we should be working to elevate single women from poverty. That has nothing to do with this issue, though, and conflating the two is bullshit. Also, the father should be punished, too. This isn't about the mother exclusively, that was simply the part of the problem we're talking about since it was tied to abortion.

EDIT X2: Also, I just realized you didn't even address the question. I asked what you would consider a bad decision, not to highlight which decision already mentioned was bad. Again: at what point is the individual held responsible for their actions?
---