Public hanging should be legal

[schildi]

May 18, 2011 8:00:55 GMT -5 ruger2506 said:

I for one would love to see this man tortured.

Wow, sounds a bit extreme.

[happyscooter]

Let's save the public hanging for the mother who killed her child on the other thread. Can I please, please provide the rope???

[happyscooter]

'But how do I know for sure? Is there something different about the card itself? It was so much easier to be a judgmental douche back when I was kid and my mom had to use the physical stamps.'

They can't get money back from the EBT card. Oh believe me, they try. Each time I get behind them in line at the grocery store.

[schildi]

May 19, 2011 7:44:00 GMT -5 happyscooter said:

Let's save the public hanging for the mother who killed her child on the other thread. Can I please, please provide the rope???

which thread is that?

[Deleted]

In MN there are pretty tough asset limits for food stamps. I agree with it for the most part, but not so sure about taking home equity into account. I don't think people should be forced to sell their house to get through a rough spot.

[Clever Username]

Here's the point I'm looking to make. It's not quite clear where to draw the line on this.
Yeah, it's against the spirit of food stamps to take them when you don't need them. It's against the goal of the food stamp program.
But, how about unemployment? Social Security? Etc.

There's a term the Fundamentalist Mormons use, 'bleed the beast' they view the government as evil, therefore they can morally do anything within their power to harm said beast.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I don't think people should be forced to sell their house to get through a rough spot.

Why not? It's an asset ain't it? If somebody rents a place and collects gold coins you have no problem with them being forced to sell the gold coins right? Why is it different for somebody who buys a house instead? Each person is spending a certain amount of money every month to build up assets. Why should real estate be looked at differently than stocks, gold, or whatever?

[swamp]

May 19, 2011 13:39:18 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I don't think people should be forced to sell their house to get through a rough spot.

Why not? It's an asset ain't it? If somebody rents a place and collects gold coins you have no problem with them being forced to sell the gold coins right? Why is it different for somebody who buys a house instead? Each person is spending a certain amount of money every month to build up assets. Why should real estate be looked at differently than stocks, gold, or whatever?

I can give you my county's reasoning. Real estate is cheap here, and the people will blow through the proceeds of the sale of the house pretty quick. The county will also probably end up giving them rental assistance, at further expense to the county. If you let the people stay in their homes, the county is still getting the real estate taxes and they don't have to pay rental subsidies. The county does, however, put a lien on the property for the amount of aid extended that will have to be paid back when the property is sold.

[Sum Dum Gai]

It just seems like every level of government and every program has some special exemption for real estate, or some way they encourage/subsidize it. I always wonder how much more affordable real estate would be if we got all the subsidies out of it and let supply and demand set real prices. Our home ownership rates would probably drop somewhat drastically, but I think housing costs would come down quite a bit too, which is probably a better deal in the long run.

[973beachbum]

In NJ they used to have a dollar limit on how much RE assets the person can have. It is only for the one primary residence. The theory is that the person could have had money but not have it anymore. Selling a house would take a long time to yeild any money too. It is my understanding that they also list a judgement that takes any later windfalls like lotteries etc to payback the things like foodstamps or welfare.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2011 13:39:18 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I don't think people should be forced to sell their house to get through a rough spot.

Why not? It's an asset ain't it? If somebody rents a place and collects gold coins you have no problem with them being forced to sell the gold coins right? Why is it different for somebody who buys a house instead? Each person is spending a certain amount of money every month to build up assets. Why should real estate be looked at differently than stocks, gold, or whatever?

Because people need a place to live. Forcing them to sell their house and uproot their family so they can get a couple hundred dollars a month in food isn't helping them. And it's not like selling a house is always an easy thing...especially these days. Everyone likes to jump on the long-term users of government assistance, but there are a lot of people that are just in a temporary bad spot and selling a house is just too drastic for the situation IMO.

[Sum Dum Gai]

To me you have to draw the line somewhere. What if the house is completely paid for? Why do they need some of my money if they're sitting on an asset worth $100k that they could sell to get themselves through the rough patch? It's a pile of sticks and drywall, there are millions of them out there, buy another one once you get back on your feet. It's not the end of the world.

[midjd]

Dark, in principle I agree, but in practice it's not nearly that simple.

However, there could be some middle ground... for example, placing a lien on the house for the amount of aid received, and if the house was ever sold (or sold in the next X years), that money would be recovered... but forcing people to sell before they can receive aid, particularly in this housing market, would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Forcing people to spend down all their emergency savings before they can get aid causes problems too, but I don't see anyone arguing against that. Forcing people to stay out of the workforce or lose their state funded medical coverage causes problems. Especially when one spouse is sick but the other could work, as I'm sure MtShastaWriter could attest. If we're going to have punitive asset rules on aid I don't see why we'd exempt real estate assets but include everything else.

[Deleted]

If we're going to have punitive asset rules on aid I don't see why we'd exempt real estate assets but include everything else.

Primary residence real estate only, and everything else isn't included. Retirement accounts are normally exempt as well. It's silly to have a social welfare program in place that causes more hardship than it alleviates. I agree, if someone is in a situation where they can't afford to live where they are then they should sell, but to just blanket require everyone asking for aid to do so is ridiculous. For example, in the house I used to own, my mortgage was only $325/month. I would have had to pay double that for an apartment. Sure, I had 30 or 40K in equity (potentially, if it sold for asking), but that could have taken months and then where would I live?

[Sum Dum Gai]

I agree, if someone is in a situation where they can't afford to live where they are then they should sell, but to just blanket require everyone asking for aid to do so is ridiculous.

Doesn't the fact that you need welfare sort of prove that you can't afford to live where you currently are?

[Deleted]

May 19, 2011 16:06:09 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Doesn't the fact that you need welfare sort of prove that you can't afford to live where you currently are?

Not if the cost of renting is higher.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Not if the cost of renting is higher.

I see. So it's your right to live exactly where you choose even if you can't afford to own or rent there, and even if Uncle Sam has to pay part of the bill using tax money he collects from the rest of us? Interesting.

[azphx1972]

Dark, I agree with you in theory, but where do you draw the line? Why not force people to raid their retirement accounts, or deprive them of future SS benefits, or make them max out their credit cards, before allowing them to collect any kind of benefits?

[Sum Dum Gai]

Dark, I agree with you in theory, but where do you draw the line?

I'd like to see the line drawn at tax advantaged accounts. So you wouldn't have to raid your 401k/IRA, or the kid's college fund but you would have to sell off pretty much all other assets, brokerage accounts, EF, personal possessions (other than some exemption for clothes and basic household items of course), real estate, etc. and live of those proceeds first. And I don't think you should be allowed to contribute to the tax deferred accounts while receiving benefits. It's not Uncle Sam's job to subsidize your saving by covering your living expenses.

[azphx1972]

Hmm, well if you're going with that line of thought I would include the kid's college funds too. The children can fend for themselves, and it shouldn't be taxpayers' burden to subsidize their education beyond what's already available IMO. However, I might feel that way because I had to earn my own way through school. ;D

[Sum Dum Gai]

I kind of thought the same thing on college funds, but then why exempt retirement savings either? Nobody is owed a retirement. However, the tax implications and penalties from raiding tax deferred accounts are pretty stiff, so I think exempting those is a fair compromise.

[Deleted]

Why would they get to keep their retirement accounts? Might as well make them turn them over too. Definitely not college savings.

If people have a hard time selling before they starve, they can just turn it over to the bank and get in government subsidized housing.