Rep Al Green: Extend Free Housing for Evacuees til 2008

Sounds like we need a second Great Depression to give all of America a taste of what "poor" really means.....

 

let me just clarify what I mean was at some point in history this country went from being mostly poor or at least poor by our standards to mostly middle class and for most of us, it happened during our grandparents' lifetime.

 

If you against this. . . . I truly don't want to hear you b*tch about the increase in crime that comes with increased Poverty

It is strange . . because then we will take the same money and
put it into more Jails and Policement
but that is the American way

I think that the Katrina Victims do require more aid
their have been failings at all points
and
I know . .NO ONE wants to hear it but
we failed these people a Long time before that hurricane hit

There just does not seem to be ANY Plan on what to do with them

I beleive in funding. . but i beleive in funding a plan
this extension to an extent is a thump in the dyke.
Putting off to tomorrow what needs to be done today
No . .. I ain't saying kick them out
but
I am definately saying. . .we need a plan else wise
Will we be having this debate that the beginning of 2008?

Rocket River

 

But that's the point. The parents and/or grandparents worked their asses off so their kids and/or grandkids could have a better life, better education and more opportunities to succeed. It doesn't mean they can't have an opinion or use their experience as inspiration...

So tell me how much "fortitude" it takes to live in section 8 housing and foodstamps?

 

That there seems to be the problem. Forever funding doesn't seem right, but a nine month extention doesn't seem out of line given it seem they haven't yet addressed the problems here.

 

I know what the point is but people use it to validate their opinion. secondly we are talking about people who lost everything in a natural disaster so the comparisons aren't even valid. this is a unique even. so I just don't care to respond to your last point as this isn't a thread on welfare in general other than I believe with the welfare reform of the 90's most people are required to work.

 

I don't think you can begin to compare an individual who worked hard to overcome obstacles, to an entire group that was moved through no doing of their own.

I expect there are some evacuees who have taken the opportunities and improved their lot in life. But I don't think tough-love is good public policy.

 

The point is that every year there are thousands of immigrants that come here from places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc, bust their asses, and make a better living. Hell, they would starve and be homeless if they didn't.

Meanwhile, handing out 9 more months of free housing simply discourages most people from proactively bettering themselves. In other words, 9 more months of handouts, no need to work too hard just yet.

Bear in mind, I was one of the most pissed off posters on here when FEMA and our federal government were holding their collective nuts while thousands of people were stranded in the Superdome/Convention Center in the heat without access to simple things like water.

 

taking off on pgabriel's viewpoint:

I grew up po' white trash - I'm talking deep, ugly, roaches in the toilet & electricity getting shut off, poverty. I took a job washing dishes for $2.50 an hour during a summer when I was 12 and most of it went for buying groceries/gas bill/rent. In a half-formulated plan, I purposely aggravated my high school to the point where they'd be forced to expel me so I could legally work (I was 14/15, and truancy laws in my state required a minimum age of 16). I spent almost a month homeless when I was 17. I never graduated high school. But I got lucky ... an opportunity, which definitely looked nothing like an opportunity, was forced upon me. Also, I'm pretty smart (yes, I'm bragging - but if you're smart, maybe you're also smart enough to recognize your own intelligence).

I know what it's like to be there, and am very aware that most of the people I talk to have no idea what it's like, and that becomes most apparent when they start talking about what the poor need to do to improve themselves.

Here's what gets me: Even though I got out, and will never go back to living like that, I got lucky (sorta). Right now, there is someone living like that, someone who is exactly like I was who will not get lucky - the real value of wages is declining, necessities (food, rent, electricity, transportation) are steadily getting more expensive, college tution is rising at something like 16 times the rate of inflation - someone, a bit more intelligent than normal and willing to work, is going to go through exactly what I went through, but will never escape from it.

That makes me sad, and pissed when I hear the "up-by-the-bootstraps" rant that good tax-paying citizens trot out everytime someone gets government aid. In the 1960s, if you started with nothing, you had a pretty good chance of doing well for yourself. In the 1970s, you had lean times, but you could still escape. In the 1980s, difficulties increased but you still had a chance. In the 1990s, everything was more expensive, and you were more likely to stay in the situation you were born in, but there were outs if you stumbled upon them or knew where to look. In the 2000s, if you start at zero, you're pretty much ****ed for life.

Maybe a lot of Katrina's victims are just milking the aid money and have no intention of getting some crap minimum-wage job, even though jobs like that are always available (for obvious reasons). That, naturally, pisses off people (who usually have better jobs) who have to work to pay their car notes, mortgages, etc.,. But, even if this is the case (and it's usually an exagerration), there may be 1 out of every 100 who is willing to do what needs to be done to make his/her life a better one. It may be a teenage kid of one of the parents collecting government aid.

It's aggravating to see free-marketers use the same WRONG arguments everytime. Y'all insist on the value of self-discipline in escaping poverty - but you demand a level of self-discipline that you would never be able to exact from yourself, particularly if you lived in poverty. You look at your bank account and assume it says something about your value as a human being - that you've somehow made it through your own hard work and ingenuity. Sure, that may have something to do with it, but it has far more to do with the accident of where and when you were born. The correlative of this viewpoint is, when viewing people living in poverty, the assumption that they're poor because they're nowhere near as smart and hard-working as you are. Go ahead, admit it. This viewpoint will probably always exist because it feeds the self-satisfaction of so many people, but it will always be wrong.

The laws and codes for dispensing aid should be written to deal with people as they are, not as better-born members of society say they should be. If we have to pay for the expenses of 100 people to assure that 1 of those people will be given a genuine chance at a better life, then we should do so gladly - because most of us in that situation, although no one will admit it, would be counted among the other 99.

 

see the post above yours.

the fact is people live life and hit a comfort zone. its not like your father all of sudden one day decided to move over here and get an education. I'm sure he dreamed of it since a young age.

the people in new orleans did not plan on their life changing. now if you want to compare your father to just the average everyday poor people and the cycle of poverty in this country its one thing, but this isn't what is going with the katrina evacuees.

I'm not giving my opinion either way, just saying your father's situation is irrelevant in this case.

 

Your observations are duly noted. Many of us, myself included, come from similar backgrounds, but were lucky enough and smart enough to recognize and seize opportunities (like college which was far less expensive and more learning-oriented in my day -- the sixties). That 1 out of 100 you speak about will always rise phoenix-like out of the ashes. And, believe me, if one looks, opportunities abound. Myself, I have founded not one but three successful companies -- all from scratch (all but the last), that is, using virtually no capital.

Again, I never had any use for New Orleans. From the time of Robert Walker (a land speculator and U.S. senator of Louisiana who was instrumental in getting Texas into the union) through the time of the Long dynasty through the time of Ray Nagin, the city has been a sink of crime.

These are people that were not downtrodden -- most were accustomed to living off the public tit. Oh, I'm sure there were some good apples in there ... somewhere.

However, regarding your point, I admire your compassion, but it is misplaced when looking at the New Orleans situation. Both my cousin, also a business owner, and I hired refugees to give them a hand up. I don't regret it, but the reward was, well, less than rewarding.

 

They need to stop getting free handouts. Get a job and support yourself. I hate to say this, but a lot of these people were in a bad financial situation before the hurricane. Many of them didnt have jobs back then. Why now do they get money from us for basically doing nothing but wait for other people to do things for them?

 

All I'm asking is that those of you who agree with extending this program until the 2 year period has expired express at what point you would say enough is enough.

Then when you do that, explain to me how doing it then is any different than doing it now.

 

are people really concerned about $200M being spent for the extension?

or

seeing people who are supposed to be dirt poor being simply poor?

 

I would like to point out that many refugees got public assistance, often for a long time. I know Hmong families who are still living in government assisted housing and getting other assistance even though they've been here for 30 years.

 

I will agree that's a difficult question and we never want people living on the dole. Honestly I don't have an answer.

That said though how do you feel about throwing them out on the street and leaving them homeless?

Unless they succeed tax dollars will pay for them, either in rent subsidies or in jail. Rent subsidies are cheaper than jail and as long as they have a roof over their head they have a better shot at getting employed. I'm not advocating they live in River Oaks but some minimal level of help to keep them from being homeless is a cost that I think society can bear and given the alternatives is better than leaving them homeless.

 

Anyone who hasn't found work or a place to stay by now simply isn't looking for it because they know the government is helping them. There are plenty of Katrina refugees who had work within weeks in the Houston area. If a flood caused me to lose everything and move to another city, I would probably spend my first few days or weeks in that city trying to find a job.

I know it sounds heartless but by continuing this aid, all the government will be doing is encouraging laziness. The people who are still on the government aid list for Katrina are the ones who are going to be on it no matter how long it's offered. If you continue it for 30 years, they'll be on it for 30 years. The ones who had the personal drive to find work and a place to stay have done so already.

I know someone will come in now and post "why do you hate poor people" but the people who are posting that have no real intention of debating the actual issue. The issue here isn't poor people because I didn't say we shouldn't have helped these people at all. The issue here is lazy people because after this much time, you should have found some way to help yourself.

EDIT: And thank you, Shishir Chang for answering the question I posed.

 

Here is the problem. Creating more homelessnes, displaced hopeless population, will have cause an even greater increase in crime. What money isn't spent on housing the refugees will be spent in court fees, law enforcement, prisons etc.

Why not spend the money on housing and help prevent the crime increase, rather than spend it on the costs of crime, and have the pain of crime as well.

 

In my utopia . . . . everyone would have the bare minimun to survive
Food, Water, Shelter and Clothing

but
I know most people. . .ESP Americans could not live there
because . . the idea that someone has those
even if they are the WORSE and most MEAGER possible
would drive people crazy

YOU MEAN
They get to eat crap food, wear rags, drink muddy water and sleep
in a box. . . . FOR FREE!!!! *EGADS* . . THE HUMANITY!!

Rocket River

 

Frankly I don't think I did give you an answer. To answer you more directly I'm willing to say indefinately but I would make the subsidy fairly limited. Essentially Section 8 housing. I don't think they should be homeless but they should understand they are getting the bare minimum.