The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Get in line for Obamoney

Thousands Mob Cobo in Hopes of Free Cash
Updated: Wednesday, 07 Oct 2009, 10:03 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 06 Oct 2009, 11:42 AM EDT

By COREY WILLIAMS
Associated Press Writer
DETROIT (AP) - Scuffles erupted as several thousand Detroit residents jockeyed, pushed and shoved Wednesday to get free money being offered to only 3,500 of the city's recently or soon to be homeless.

Several received medical treatment for fainting or exhaustion while frantically trying to obtain the applications for federal housing assistance. The long lines and short tempers highlighted the frustration and desperation that Detroit residents feel struggling through an economic nightmare.

The line around Cobo Center, a downtown convention center, started forming well before daybreak. Anger flared within a few hours as more people sought out a dwindling number of applications for the program.

Members of the Detroit Police Department's Gang Squad and other tactical units were called in for crowd control. Several people reportedly passed out from exhaustion and had to be treated by emergency medical personnel. Some minor injuries were reported, and no arrests were made.

"It's a sign of the times, and we can't deny we have people here who are in need," said Karen Dumas, communications director for Mayor Dave Bing. "It's scary and very disappointing. It also shows a need for redirection for our city."

One in four working-age adults in Detroit is without a job, and the city's home foreclosure rate continues to be among the nation's highest. One in four families and three out of every 10 individuals live below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census.

Before Wednesday, Detroit Planning and Development workers already had spent two days handling long lines at City Hall and other locations. Rumors that $3,000 stimulus checks from the Obama administration spurred heavy turnouts.

That helped get 33-year-old William Lambert and his 27-year-old fiancee, Iesha Wagner, to City Hall on Tuesday. Lambert said he is out of work and living with Wagner at her mother's home.

"We kind of fell on hard times," he said. "It's hard working as a carpenter and then not working at all. It's not good right now."

Odessa Willis also heard the stimulus rumors, but needed to find out for herself Tuesday.

"I'm here to meet a need so I won't become homeless and my utilities will be paid," said Willis, 56. "With this economy, I'm not able to keep my head above water."

The city distributed more than 50,000 applications for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program over the past several days before running out Wednesday morning. Only 3,500 people who qualify will receive the money -- a maximum $3,000 per applicant, Dumas said.

Many residents taking applications won't qualify because of the program's strict income requirements. Dumas also fears people who really need the money might have missed out on applications because of the long lines.

To be considered, applicants must have lived in Detroit for the past six months, been homeless within the past year and be of low to moderate income. A single applicant is ineligible with an income of more than $24,850 annually; the maximum annual income for an eligible family of four is $35,500.

Individuals and families meeting the income criteria and facing eviction and foreclosure also are eligible. Being able to maintain housing after getting the assistance also is a condition of the program.

The program also provides money to keep utilities turned on.

The deadline to submit applications -- originally Wednesday -- has been extended a week because of the "enormous number" distributed, she added.

Demand by so many people for any type of assistance is to be expected, Wayne State University psychology professor Paul Toro said Wednesday. Toro has been involved in studies on Detroit's homeless.

"With the economy tanking, homelessness is going to rise," he said. "There are so many people who are near homelessness and so many more just a hair away from it."

*sigh* blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value.

Rorinthas wrote:

*sigh* blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom have any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place.

3 days a week they report to a public works area and do the unskilled tasks that the skilled laborers end up doing. Like mowing lawns, cleaning the shop, emptying trash cans at the park, picking up litter etc.

How about just not giving them the $3,000? The only thing I can immagine being less efficient and productive than having the government pay a group of reasonably "educated and motivated" skilled laborers to do menial tasks is to have them pay a group of uneducated, unmotivated, and unskilled wellfare recipients to do them.

The steps you wish to see implemented in order to protect government funds from those who haven't "earned" them will cost more than just handing over the money in the first place. Think about the layers and layers of bureaucracy you just described, the union jobs you've created in administering the programs and managing data bases, the increased court costs and collection fees, and the wealth of new political apointments nessecary to fill the administrative positions...

I'm all about forcing people to sink or swim, but I refuse to try and coax them into the water to get them to do so. I'm more of a "just throw the lazy **** in" kinda guy.

Rorinthas wrote:

*sigh* blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom had any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place.

Rynar wrote:

Rorinthas wrote:

*sigh* blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value.

Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment. This core conservative fallacy is one of the main reasons conservatism has lost touch with America in such a profound way. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a fool. There are any number of reasons people can fall upon hard times, no matter how well they do.

Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down.

No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money.

Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment.

This core conservative fallacy is one of the main reasons conservatism has lost touch with America in such a profound way.

Just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a fool. There are any number of reasons people can fall upon hard times, no matter how well they do.

Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down.

Monte wrote:

Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment.

This is actually true. I don't immagine that most people here come from wealth, yet the bulk of us find ourselves to be successful now. I know that there was certainly a time in my not so distant past that I was poor. Hard work and determination, not some form of forced wealth redistribution, was my means of assention.

Elmarnieh wrote:

No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money.

The reason they are not good with money is usually from a lack of education, and being born into a poor or immigrant family without a savings culture.

Imperi wrote:

Elmarnieh wrote:

No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money.

The reason they are not good with money is usually from a lack of education, and being born into a poor or immigrant family without a savings culture.

Nonsense. I grew up about as poor as you can in this country and I'm doing just fine.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Get in line for Obamoney
$3,000. Free and clear. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/homeless_assistance_10609 Quote: Thousands Mob Cobo in Hopes of Free Cash Updated: Wednesday, 07 Oct 2009, 10:03 PM EDT Published : Tuesday, 06 Oct 2009, 11:42 AM EDT By COREY WILLIAMS Associated Press Writer DETROIT (AP) - Scuffles erupted as several thousand Detroit residents jockeyed, pushed and shoved Wednesday to get free money being offered to only 3,500 of the city's recently or soon to be homeless. Several received medical treatment for fainting or exhaustion while frantically trying to obtain the applications for federal housing assistance. The long lines and short tempers highlighted the frustration and desperation that Detroit residents feel struggling through an economic nightmare. The line around Cobo Center, a downtown convention center, started forming well before daybreak. Anger flared within a few hours as more people sought out a dwindling number of applications for the program. Members of the Detroit Police Department's Gang Squad and other tactical units were called in for crowd control. Several people reportedly passed out from exhaustion and had to be treated by emergency medical personnel. Some minor injuries were reported, and no arrests were made. "It's a sign of the times, and we can't deny we have people here who are in need," said Karen Dumas, communications director for Mayor Dave Bing. "It's scary and very disappointing. It also shows a need for redirection for our city." One in four working-age adults in Detroit is without a job, and the city's home foreclosure rate continues to be among the nation's highest. One in four families and three out of every 10 individuals live below the poverty level, according to the U.S. Census. Before Wednesday, Detroit Planning and Development workers already had spent two days handling long lines at City Hall and other locations. Rumors that $3,000 stimulus checks from the Obama administration spurred heavy turnouts. That helped get 33-year-old William Lambert and his 27-year-old fiancee, Iesha Wagner, to City Hall on Tuesday. Lambert said he is out of work and living with Wagner at her mother's home. "We kind of fell on hard times," he said. "It's hard working as a carpenter and then not working at all. It's not good right now." Odessa Willis also heard the stimulus rumors, but needed to find out for herself Tuesday. "I'm here to meet a need so I won't become homeless and my utilities will be paid," said Willis, 56. "With this economy, I'm not able to keep my head above water." The city distributed more than 50,000 applications for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing program over the past several days before running out Wednesday morning. Only 3,500 people who qualify will receive the money -- a maximum $3,000 per applicant, Dumas said. Many residents taking applications won't qualify because of the program's strict income requirements. Dumas also fears people who really need the money might have missed out on applications because of the long lines. To be considered, applicants must have lived in Detroit for the past six months, been homeless within the past year and be of low to moderate income. A single applicant is ineligible with an income of more than $24,850 annually; the maximum annual income for an eligible family of four is $35,500. Individuals and families meeting the income criteria and facing eviction and foreclosure also are eligible. Being able to maintain housing after getting the assistance also is a condition of the program. The program also provides money to keep utilities turned on. The deadline to submit applications -- originally Wednesday -- has been extended a week because of the "enormous number" distributed, she added. Demand by so many people for any type of assistance is to be expected, Wayne State University psychology professor Paul Toro said Wednesday. Toro has been involved in studies on Detroit's homeless. "With the economy tanking, homelessness is going to rise," he said. "There are so many people who are near homelessness and so many more just a hair away from it."

Author:	Rorinthas [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
sigh blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value.

Author:	Stathol [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:
If there's anything that we learned from our Katrina FEMA debit cards, it's that giving away free money will work out well.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Rorinthas wrote: sigh blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom had any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place.

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Rynar wrote: Rorinthas wrote: sigh blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom have any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place. I remember seeing something on TV once that put it into perspective...they took a homeless guy and gave him $100,000 and then followed his story to see what he did with the money. He had financial advisors available to him if he wanted it but he never utilized them. He threw a party for his friends, bought his gf a car, and when the money ran out 6 mths later he was homeless again.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Get in line for Obamoney https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=509	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, no one is homeless because they made too many good decisions. Anyone who can't see that is logically impoverished.

Author:	Imperi [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Labor camps.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Labor camps?

Author:	Hannibal [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: Labor camps? I'm not going to say they are a good idea, however making welfare recipients do something for their check is a good idea. 3 days a week they report to a public works area and do the unskilled tasks that the skilled laborers end up doing. Like mowing lawns, cleaning the shop, emptying trash cans at the park, picking up litter etc. So for 96 hours of simple work, they get paid for the month.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:
How about just not giving them the $3,000? The only thing I can immagine being less efficient and productive than having the government pay a group of reasonably "educated and motivated" skilled laborers to do menial tasks is to have them pay a group of uneducated, unmotivated, and unskilled wellfare recipients to do them.

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Hannibal wrote: 3 days a week they report to a public works area and do the unskilled tasks that the skilled laborers end up doing. Like mowing lawns, cleaning the shop, emptying trash cans at the park, picking up litter etc. Wouldn't that put the skilled laborers out of a job? What was that South Park quote....something about the kids collecting soda cans to benefit the homeless, ironically taking away the only job the homeless have?

Author:	Hannibal [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: How about just not giving them the $3,000? The only thing I can immagine being less efficient and productive than having the government pay a group of reasonably "educated and motivated" skilled laborers to do menial tasks is to have them pay a group of uneducated, unmotivated, and unskilled wellfare recipients to do them. Baby steps. The lazy ones will not show up. That will save $. Those that do, guess what- random piss tests. You fail- sorry no check for joo. And to keep our records straight, please show up with your Social Security number and a picture ID. Oh, look you've got outstanding fines/citations. Well, lets deduct that from your check. Next step will be to have a time limit cap on benefits. It's ment to be a social saftey net, not a support system. During this time we will replace the teaching of song to the furher Obama and replace that time with civics classes. Better people know how government works then being taught to sing praises of a man who sold them down the river. Don't worry, when you force people to sink or swim, you will be suprised at how many folks can learn to swim real fast.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:
That will anger too many voters Hannibal. No one would inact that as it would both ensure they would not longer be in office if they did enact it they would not be in office and it would be removed by the next person elected.

Author:	Hannibal [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Hence why I'd prob do very well in office, but be a lousy politician. I'd just like the level of self sufficency in this nation (and the world) to raise a bit higher. I deal with so many people on a daily basis who just throw their hands up and go "you fix it I can't" and a few minutes later, they get indigiant that I'm giving them a bill for pressing three buttons.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:
The steps you wish to see implemented in order to protect government funds from those who haven't "earned" them will cost more than just handing over the money in the first place. Think about the layers and layers of bureaucracy you just described, the union jobs you've created in administering the programs and managing data bases, the increased court costs and collection fees, and the wealth of new political apointments nessecary to fill the administrative positions... I'm all about forcing people to sink or swim, but I refuse to try and coax them into the water to get them to do so. I'm more of a "just throw the lazy **** in" kinda guy.

Author:	Hannibal [ Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: The steps you wish to see implemented in order to protect government funds from those who haven't "earned" them will cost more than just handing over the money in the first place. Think about the layers and layers of bureaucracy you just described, the union jobs you've created in administering the programs and managing data bases, the increased court costs and collection fees, and the wealth of new political apointments nessecary to fill the administrative positions... I'm all about forcing people to sink or swim, but I refuse to try and coax them into the water to get them to do so. I'm more of a "just throw the lazy **** in" kinda guy. I'm not protecting government funds. I'm protecting the peoples money. The database is there already, just requires them to show up instead of phoning it in. It requires the office workers to do what they are supposed to be doing, just in a different manner. It's already there, I'd just like it enforced.

Author:	Monte [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Rynar wrote: Rorinthas wrote: sigh blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom had any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place. Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment. This core conservative fallacy is one of the main reasons conservatism has lost touch with America in such a profound way. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a fool. There are any number of reasons people can fall upon hard times, no matter how well they do. Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down.

Author:	Nitefox [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Monte wrote: Rynar wrote: Rorinthas wrote: sigh blanket money is not the answer. I wonder how much of has ended up in drug dealers pockets or on new speakers or who knows what else of pointless value. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Bottom up economics doesn't work, because if those on the bottom had any good ideas about wealth and investment, they wouldn't have been at the very bottom in the first place. Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment. This core conservative fallacy is one of the main reasons conservatism has lost touch with America in such a profound way. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a fool. There are any number of reasons people can fall upon hard times, no matter how well they do. Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down. How many jobs have you gotten from a poor person?

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:39 am ]
Post subject:
No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money.

Author:	Imperi [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Elmarnieh wrote: No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money. The reason they are not good with money is usually from a lack of education, and being born into a poor or immigrant family without a savings culture.

Author:	Rynar [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Monte wrote: Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment. This is actually true. I don't immagine that most people here come from wealth, yet the bulk of us find ourselves to be successful now. I know that there was certainly a time in my not so distant past that I was poor. Hard work and determination, not some form of forced wealth redistribution, was my means of assention. Quote: This core conservative fallacy is one of the main reasons conservatism has lost touch with America in such a profound way. Conservatism has not lost touch with America. Infact, I would argue that conservatism left the American political system in such a profound way that it drove the bulk of Americans, who are infact conservative, away from the the system. Now that they have been pinned against the wall, they are returning. See, Monte, conservatives don't actually want anything from their elected officials but to be left alone, so until they feel threatened, they don't say much. Town hall meetings, tea-partys, voter turn-out at congressional events, large scale protests in Washington and at the state capitals, letter writing campaigns, and the new found political fear manifesting itself on the left are evidence of this. You'll see what I mean durring and after the midterm elections when the American Idol voters don't turn out in their undereducated droves, driven by the pomp and circumstance of a high profile presidential election. Quote: Just because you are poor doesn't mean you're a fool. There are any number of reasons people can fall upon hard times, no matter how well they do. Again, I agree. However being poor, and remaining poor is a good indicator that you are indeed a fool. Quote: Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down. After disecting, this may be one of the best posts you've ever made. Seriously. Again, you are correct. Trickle-down economics don't work either. Artificially forcing money into various sectors of the economy, trending against real markets, is always a bad thing, and largely ineffective. Socialism for the rich is is just as unworkable as socialism for the poor.

Author:	Imperi [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Rynar wrote: Monte wrote: Correlation is not causation. Just because a person is poor doesn't mean they have no good ideas about wealth or investment. This is actually true. I don't immagine that most people here come from wealth, yet the bulk of us find ourselves to be successful now. I know that there was certainly a time in my not so distant past that I was poor. Hard work and determination, not some form of forced wealth redistribution, was my means of assention. Success is a fake ego game that is dependent on what you define as your "society". You need to compare yourself to others to feel good about yourself, because you don't feel good enough already. Everyone should feel in a permanent state of success, until death.

Author:	Timmit [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Imperi wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money. The reason they are not good with money is usually from a lack of education, and being born into a poor or immigrant family without a savings culture. Nonsense. I grew up about as poor as you can in this country and I'm doing just fine.

Author:	Imperi [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Timmit wrote: Imperi wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: No Monte but the most likely cause of correlation is usually common cause and the common cause here is not good with money. The reason they are not good with money is usually from a lack of education, and being born into a poor or immigrant family without a savings culture. Nonsense. I grew up about as poor as you can in this country and I'm doing just fine. There's still a heavy correlation.

Author:	Rafael [ Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Get in line for Obamoney
Monte wrote: Top down economics have led us to where we are today. Trickle down never happened - the growth we experienced went to the top, not to the bottom or even the middle. Wealth can be redistributed up or down. You can only say this and not feel insane because you have no idea how capital formation, investmenting work and how they are afflicted when interferred with by artifical forces. Trickle down has nothing to do with wealth redistribution. The fact you are conflating the two speaks in spades.