Quit sponging off of public housing

18 months is a bit to long.

I agree there should not be generation after generation living in public housing. I was just looking at properties in Augusta there are plenty under the $20,000 range. Even somebody working at the min. wage full time makes more then that in 2 years. No excuse but being lazy. My plan is to buy some of them up and have section 8 pay the rent and I will have it payed off in 2 years. Then I'll be glad to pay my taxes because I will be making money off you other taxpayers! Thanks.

How much will you be paying for repairs???????????

Unfortunately the welfare cycle has been going on for generations breaking it has become almost if not impossible. The orginal generation this began with more than likely were down on their luck but the many of the ones now are just plain used to living off the backs of the taxpayers and the government continues to allow it. What are they to do or we for that matter?

Instead of posting here about our disgust, where should we be complaining to get changes made? If enough potential voters would complain maybe we could get results on those complaints.

christian, don't give up. When politicians like Hillary say they want to change the direction America is going in, let it be known that we want change in this arena. And let them know that more money for education and jobs does nothing to get people who WANT to live off the system off of the public dole.

Hillarious isn't going to change public housing and neither will Barack.... they are to afraid of alienating their "voting" base. not unlike our commisioners that for years blocked this entire move because it would dilute their voting base and prevent their re-election.

Public housing is already dying away. It is virtually gone in Atlanta. Why not let it die a natural death instead of continuosly attacking the poor who have taken advantage of a system created by us.

Absolutely, I agree with you ponytail. The Democrats have to haVE this vote to maintain their power over these people . Until
The people in the projects , the citizens, realize what this is doing TO them, and take a stand, they will not escape the bonds that are placed on them.

Sorry shivas, as long as politicians need these folks it will not die. If you listen closely you will see that it is not the poor that is being attacked here , it is the greedy politicians who create them.

shivas, the natural death for public housing is the death of the public. Public housing is alive and well in the Atlanta-metro area. The only way to deal death to public housing is to narrow the requirements for it. Making social programs for those in need only and excluding those in want will go a long way toward solving the problem. (socialists shouldn't be allowed to decide the difference between need and want)

Sorry Dani, it is dying. As public housing is being abolished, no new projects are being built. All the things you complain about and the solutions you are inferring are already taking place. However, conservatives can't help themselves but to take a few final shots at the poor. I guess this is what makes them feel empowered and what has driven their politics of hate for the past 30 years.

patriciathomas, you are wrong. They are virtually gone in Atlanta. In fact, please notice that when you drive in from I-20, and then take 75 N by Georgia Tech. MLK and Techwood homes are gone, as are all the others. As Yogi said, "if you don't believe it, then look it up." I know this is very concerning for the right-wing, as one of their punching bags is being taken from them. I'm sure ya'll will find something different to hate to take it's place.

Shivas, do you call vouchers public housing?

I agree that some changes are necessary to make people pay more of their share. I disagree that it would be possible to stop the housing entitlement after 18 months because the housing entitlements are much broader than many can imagine. There are people that have legitimate fixed incomes that have no choice but to live in subsidized housing. Lets get creative and make recommendations that make sense because the problem will not be something radical as throw them all out on their backs. We have retirement communities, elderly communities, handicap communities and disaster relief projects that would be adversely affected. Personally, I feel all people living in housing projects should have to pay a minimum rent of $250 and at least 50% of their utilities. There is to much opportunity to circumvent their income levels and thereby reduce their share of the responsibility. $250 is a lot for someone trying to live on welfare & AFDC because welfare is typically not a lot of money as some suggest. I am all for people paying their share, I am totally against hypocrisy as though these people are causing our tax rates to spike. GWB has signed this all 8 years in office, Who's fooling who?

No PT, I do not. I agree with cparker. Very informative response.

It appears that as generations go by more and more people get on public assistance and use public housing. Maybe that is because the role model that the new generation is emulating is already on public assistance as was the two or three generations before them. I was raised in a house where my father worked two minimum wage jobs 16 hrs each day and mother cleaned houses and did other folks laundry to make ends meet but we never used public assistance. My parents set an example for me to emulate maybe those on public assistance should do the same. Maybe the answer is to quit being lazy and work hard even if it means working two jobs.

A one year moratorium was evoked to stop the demolition of the public housing in Atlanta, but it will all go. It will start in 2008. They are transitioning into a mixed-income mixed-use plan. I think the goal is just affordable housing for the poor and try to end the slum and crime element of these projects. So I think the idea is to still have public housing just mixed with the public. Since the landmark federal welfare reform act in 1996 (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), individual recipients are limited to a lifetime maximum of five years cumulative for receiving federal welfare of all types. This law is 11 years old and I wonder how much fraud still continues.

The taxpayer is paying the rent for the indigent, but that's not public housing? I guess taxpayer support for those not willing to work isn't welfare. Great reasoning. The Democratic party appreciates your vote. What difference does it make if the taxpayer builds an apartment complex for the indigent or rents an existing house for them? It's still the public treasury paying their bills.

has anyone of u been down by gilbert manor lately? my guess would b 75% of them do not have jobs.........people are constantly out sitting in there yards 24/7 and then the drug dealers are living there with there girlfriends (or baby momas) and just making the situation worse............housing authority needs to look at there paper work and see how many of them are actually listed on there applications:)

Robin Hood made a great fantasy story, but makes a lousy social system.

In every town in Georgia you can ride through the poor areas and see school age children and young men and women sit outside there homes-not going to school and not working. I dare say most of these young men and women could perform an honest days work-they don't won't to nor obviously have to. There has to be incentive to get anyone to work. The poor in this country have a substantially better life than the poor in many countries-health care, education, computers, cars, technology, etc.

The "poor" in this country would pass for the wealthy in most countries and the "middle class" in the rest. The poor in this country are poor only in this country, and except for those physically or mentally unable to support themselves, they choose this lifestyle. The unrestricted social programs encourage this poor choice.

shivas..'no new projects are being built'??This is a bad thing??

patriciathomas, you often make this a political issue for the Democrats. I think you have this half right. Tell me which would you choose? Set the minimum wage at $15.00 with a guaranteed minimum of 30 hours per week or government regulated housing programs? The problem with Conservatives is they are whiny, cheap people that feel even if rent is $1000 a month everyone should simply get five jobs. I am sure that makes sense to you because there are some people you would rather die than help....Besides, there is no such animal as an unrestricted social program. If you think there is one, tell me what it is and I'll help explain to you the restrictions you are missing. You are the perfect example of Conservative hypocrisy. So tell us all...Would you support paying the poor a salary to pay their rent and abolish HUD or perfecting the system to better accomodate the amount taxpayers contribute?

Mixed income housing, I can already see the crime wave!

cparker, to make your scenario work you have to make several fatal assumptions. If the minimum wage were $15.00/hr the cost of living would rise to accommodate the increase. This is a "touchy feely band aid" that only soothe the public perception. Those that intend to support themselves and their family spend a VERY short time working for min.wage. If you're paying $1000 for rent, you're renting for too much. At that rate, you could buy. If, on the other hand, you wish to spend that much money, you don't need 5 jobs, you need to make yourself more valuable so you'll earn more then min.wage. The unrestricted social program doesn't exist, it just looks like it from a taxpayer point of view. I'd support abolishing HUD and most other federal social programs and leave the solution to the individual states so there'd be a social stigma attached to those that choose to live off the dole. This would also help to have the restrictions enforced. The non-productive are usually a product of the social program generated faction or our society. A move to eliminate social programs, except from those in NEED, would go a long way toward solving the problems you bring up.

cparker, If the rent for the poor is $1000/month, they need to move into cheaper housing! You can BUY a home for less than that! The problem I have with most social programs is the lack of true charity. It is not charity to reach into someone elses pocket, take what is not rightfully yours, and give it to the poor. Charity is reaching into your own pocket for the money. 100 years ago, these people relied on friends, family, churches, etc. These people made sure the monies were going to truly needy families. If we returned to that system today there would be a lot of people thrown out on the street for a general "lack of effort" in supporting themselves. Just my $0.02, and I don't think the system is going to change any time soon.

I would love to see a debate on the AC forums one day leaving race completely out of the picture. How do we really feel about the "welfare state". When I am in a group of other whites and the subject is being discussed, the issue is "white trash, trailer park trash, etc. in mind. (of course, blacks as well as whites live in trailer parks but they are thought of as all white.) We have more of a problem with whites not working than with any other race. It is assumed on this board that we are critizing only blacks, not so.

No Dani, it is a good thing for public housing to go away. Now, the voucher system is primarily ustilized by individuals who are mentally and/or physically disabled. They are not sponging off society, but rather being given an opportunity to live a life in society. Instead of acknowledging this fact, the right-wing would rather spread false propoganda that the majority of individuals who receive these vouchers are abled bodied and takeing advantage of the system. The use the minority to create a false picture of the voucher system. The right-wing is the party of hate and failure.