Trump once again wants to cut energy assistance to the poor

[Mainecat]

Nice guy that Trump asshole.....selfish prick

Trump once again wants to cut energy assistance to the poor Source: Associated Press By DAVID SHARP  PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The Trump administration is once again calling for the complete elimination of a heating assistance program that helps to keep the homes of low-income families warm. And once again, program supporters are vowing to fight it.  The administration is using the same arguments from a year ago when it tried to abolish the program, saying it’s rife with fraud and that no one would be left freezing if the program goes away.  “These arguments are very misleading and wrong,” said Mark Wolfe, director of the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association in Washington, D.C.  The program, known as LIHEAP — Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program — helps families pay their heating bills primarily in the form of a grant that’s sent directly to utility companies or heating fuel vendors. Read more: https://apnews.com/3218910423c3415ba4dba6a6a5b25dbb/Trump-once-again-wants-to-cut-energy-assistance-to-the-poor

[NaturallyAspirated]

Legitimate program to cut or eliminate.  This should be a state issue.  

Neal

[steve from amherst]

Holyoke woman faces fraud charge for allegedly receiving fuel assistance while refusing to pay rent

[steve from amherst]

Heating program for the poor is vulnerable to fraud, watchdog agency says

 

TRENTON -- A popular program that helps poor people pay their heating bills is easy to cheat because the state department running it doesn't keep close enough watch on the private agencies doling out the benefits, according to a report by the Office of the State Comptroller. 

The state agency which oversees the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, refuted many of the comptroller conclusions, which are "based on a statistically invalid level of testing."

The $3 billion federal program spent $126 million to help New Jersey recipients in 2015, according to the report. The state Department of Community Affairs disburses the money to 17 private agencies who screen the applicants. People are expected to demonstrate their eligibility by providing their social security numbers and documents attesting to their income.

Some applicants submitted phony social security numbers or misleading income information. One social security number was for a dead person, and it had been used in 25 different applications.

[Momorider]

So once again the pants shitter is a senile clueless out of touch retard  

[Mainecat]

There is always that one person eh Steve?

let em all freeze right

[steve from amherst]

No, let em fill their tank in the summer when its a little cheaper . With their own money. Same as I do.

[Mainecat]

So according to the story it’s private agencies?

[snoughnut]

49 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

There is always that one person eh Steve?

let em all freeze right

Let them huddle around your pie hole, you provide an abundant source of hot air.

[steve from amherst]

Team beggar afraid someone is going to take the tires off their free ride. Now there's something ya never see.

[Anler]

So... Lets say the US cuts ALL assistance to everybody. What do you think happens as a result of that? Companies run out of job applications? 

[steve from amherst]

Or we could all have our paychecks sent directly to the gvmt and they could provide us with our every need. As they see fit. Oh wait , that's been tried elsewere.

[Snoslinger]

1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Legitimate program to cut or eliminate.  This should be a state issue.  

Neal

and if the state is poor, or has an asshole governor? 

[Dave]

5 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

and if the state is poor, or has an asshole governor? 

Blame it on Trump at any cost.

[Anler]

24 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

Or we could all have our paychecks sent directly to the gvmt and they could provide us with our every need. As they see fit. Oh wait , that's been tried elsewere.

Here the thing about that... The reason we dont have shanty towns and people pissing and shitting in the street in and outside every city is because business owners decided it was worth the cost to relocate the undesirables to an area away from the business districts. When you cut their assistance what you will see is a sharp rise in criminal activity. It costs about $70k a year to keep someone incarcerated, thats tax dollars. So youd rather pay $70k PER PERSON than give them $400 a month in assistance? Sounds like a great plan... 

[mtnloverxtreme2]

1 hour ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Legitimate program to cut or eliminate.  This should be a state issue.  

Neal

20 years ago we had the same sort of stuff happening with the federal and provincial govts. the feds under both con and lib govts cut many programs and the provinces were forced to 'step  up to the plate'.

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, Nazipigdog said:

Here the thing about that... The reason we dont have shanty towns and people pissing and shitting in the street in and outside every city is because business owners decided it was worth the cost to relocate the undesirables to an area away from the business districts. When you cut their assistance what you will see is a sharp rise in criminal activity. It costs about $70k a year to keep someone incarcerated, thats tax dollars. So youd rather pay $70k PER PERSON than give them $400 a month in assistance? Sounds like a great plan... 

$400 a month.     There are lots of people/families receiving 5x's that in all aid.   Its one thing for people that need it but our current system has no incentives to get off of it. 

Edited February 19, 2018 by Highmark

[steve from amherst]

18 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Here the thing about that... The reason we dont have shanty towns and people pissing and shitting in the street in and outside every city is because business owners decided it was worth the cost to relocate the undesirables to an area away from the business districts. When you cut their assistance what you will see is a sharp rise in criminal activity. It costs about $70k a year to keep someone incarcerated, thats tax dollars. So youd rather pay $70k PER PERSON than give them $400 a month in assistance? Sounds like a great plan... 

So assistance is extortion. Got it.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

30 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

So assistance is extortion. Got it.

If you consider every dollar sent is going to those who wish to take advantage of the system then yes. But if you think 90%+ of that money is going to those in need, then no. 

That should be a mandatory ratio included in every one of these little stories. Rate of fraud. I think most would see that the rate of fraud is not some astronomical number. 

[Anler]

34 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

So assistance is extortion. Got it.

Um no. Thats not what that means. Not sure how you figured that. You can spend $XXX to get rid of some undesirables but the downside is they might get something they didnt earn. Or you can pay 100% of their living expenses via incarceration and then all of the ancillary costs to house/feed/healthcare via guards/ facilities/courts/police, etc... 

People can choose to better themselves anytime they want, welfare is certainly not an ideal career choice or a rock star lifestyle. The fact is some people cant or just dont want to. So it comes down to $$$ and what kind of society you want to live in. Go to a country that doesnt have the kind of welfare we or other european countries do and you will see shanty towns, high crime rates and extreme corruption. A fictional utopia where everybody works, contributes, behaves themselves and thinks like you do does not exist here, sorry. 

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Um no. Thats not what that means. Not sure how you figured that. You can spend $XXX to get rid of some undesirables but the downside is they might get something they didnt earn. Or you can pay 100% of their living expenses via incarceration and then all of the ancillary costs to house/feed/healthcare via guards/ facilities/courts/police, etc... 

People can choose to better themselves anytime they want, welfare is certainly not an ideal career choice or a rock star lifestyle. The fact is some people cant or just dont want to. So it comes down to $$$ and what kind of society you want to live in. Go to a country that doesnt have the kind of welfare we or other european countries do and you will see shanty towns, high crime rates and extreme corruption. A fictional utopia where everybody works, contributes, behaves themselves and thinks like you do does not exist here, sorry. 

The mere fact they don't have to go to work plays into substance/drug abuse.  

There is no easy answer but the fact remains is the system is severely abused.   People capable of working that don't because they don't have too.   Watch the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia sometime.   The way they talk about govt assistance like its owed to them will make you sick.  Not needing a job perpetuates their drug use.  

Edited February 19, 2018 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Highmark said:

The mere fact they don't have to go to work plays into substance/drug abuse.  

There is no easy answer but the fact remains is the system is severely abused.   People capable of working that don't because they don't have too.   Watch the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia sometime.   The way they talk about govt assistance like its owed to them will make you sick.  

There is room for optimizing the programs at hand. No doubt about that. But the fact remains, they do more good than they do bad. Now is that a good answer for law abiding tax payers who foot the bill? Depends on your stance. I think nearly all agree that these programs are not bad. That they help. The problem is we tend to go to the extreme with legislation where it is either all great or a shithole den of corruption. Like everything it’s in the middle. 

[Anler]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

The mere fact they don't have to go to work plays into substance/drug abuse.  

There is no easy answer but the fact remains is the system is severely abused.   People capable of working that don't because they don't have too.   Watch the Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia sometime.   The way they talk about govt assistance like its owed to them will make you sick.  Not needing a job perpetuates their drug use.  

I'm not denying that some of them are degenerates, I'm just pointing out the options we are faced with. Thinking that when faced with homelessness and starvation people are just going to start acting right is not really practical as this system was the solution to this originally. People have to want to better themselves, how do you convince them to do that? 

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

There is room for optimizing the programs at hand. No doubt about that. But the fact remains, they do more good than they do bad. Now is that a good answer for law abiding tax payers who foot the bill? Depends on your stance. I think nearly all agree that these programs are not bad. That they help. The problem is we tend to go to the extreme with legislation where it is either all great or a shithole den of corruption. Like everything it’s in the middle. 

I'm not sure I agree with that anymore and I'd hardly say its fact. 

The modern welfare system along with Roe v. Wade has had a huge impact on the American family.....especially the AA family.  The two largest increases in the decline of the family can be directly correlated to the dates of the great society programs and R v. W.  

There is a reason why children of all races but especially AA's with 2 parents in the home are far less likely to live in poverty, have criminal records, drop out of school, get college degree's so and and so forth.   That evidence is undeniable.  

We can't look at poverty and assistance without being honest about the causes first.  Even in the AA community 2 parent household poverty rate is astonishingly low.    

Edited February 19, 2018 by Highmark

[steve from amherst]

9 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

I'm not denying that some of them are degenerates, I'm just pointing out the options we are faced with. Thinking that when faced with homelessness and starvation people are just going to start acting right is not really practical as this system was the solution to this originally. People have to want to better themselves, how do you convince them to do that? 

You don't convince them, you force them work or starve. The problem is if they work they would only make what assistance pays. So in their eyes it is like working for nothing. Nobody wants to work for what they can get for nothing. Not even me.