Come on Spidey, this is about food stamps, so I don't think it's reasonable to say "welfare". I mean, unless we're going to talk about all the other entitlements out there: tax breaks for homeowners, subsidized flood insurance for those homeowners, etc.
Originally Posted by curlyarca
I'm talking about the MEANS TESTED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE programs that relate to the population who receive food stamps. Flood insurance, etc., isn't germane to this particular topic.

Why accept section 8 if the people are so fraudulently receiving assistance from the government?
Originally Posted by curlyarca
I know there is a huge need among ppl/families who honestly and legitmately qualify for these services and I want to help them. I want children to grow up in the nicest, safest homes they can.

Why not seek tenants who can pay with cash they have earned/borrowed from somewhere else instead of passively supporting their cheating?
Originally Posted by curlyarca
When I see a glaring, unmistakable offense, I report it. I won't knowingly support cheating. But I contract w/ the housing agency, not the tenant. I'm not their babysitter. I just own and maintain the properties.

But yes, I have private pay tenants, too.

Would/did you accept a tenant that offered to pay you under the table?
Originally Posted by curlyarca
Never. (And have lost a lot of money by refusing to accept it.)

The poor are easy targets. To be poor is to be weak and an eff up.
Originally Posted by curlyarca
I don't think the majority of Americans feel this way. Most of us agree that there is a need for these programs...but utilized the right way. (Most of us are but a paycheck or two away from the same situation so who are we to judge?)

Food stamps are not the problem. Wages are the problem.
Originally Posted by curlyarca
True. But a separate problem is the fraud and abuse that plague the welfare system...which admittedly probably won't be improved w/ this legislation.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 09-23-2013 at 10:37 AM.