Skip to comments.Bloomberg’s Public Housing Fingerprinting Idea Stuns, Infuriates Residents
Posted on 08/16/2013 6:58:14 PM PDT by SkyPilot
click here to read article
"Something tells me that most of them are fingerprinted already."
Oh heck...just go ahead and put a micro-chip in every New Yorker.
It’s “for the children”
Put me in charge of food stamps. Food Stamp ATM cards could only be used for food without the ability to get cash. No money for junk food, alcohol, tobacco, or sodas - just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, alcohol or tobacco, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV, Xbox 360 or a cell phone, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It might be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing or whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims, low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and use that $$ to reduce the debt.
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money youhave to accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin "self-esteem," consider that it wasn't all that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self-esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make those bad choices.
AND while you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct, since voting would be a conflict of interest. You will abstain from voting while you are receiving a Govt welfare check. If you want to vote, then GET A JOB.
Bloomberg is a blooming fascist. Please tell him to get out of Colorado
AND have random, monthly drug tests for every recipient of government money. Those who test positive would have their government money revoked for eight months.
Great post from the web site. Reminds me of the rarely quoted verse, “if a man will not work, he shall not eat.”
Bloomberg is a blooming fascist. Please tell him to get out of Colorado
Cuba or North Korea?
Mr Bloomberg is quite the controller. New Yorkers must love him.
In Cuba or North Korea, if you don't work, you don't have a place to live, you don't eat, and so on. Public housing residents in NYC get free digs without having to work for it, unless having a pulse is considered working.
Actually, he is fairly conservative in the traditional sense of the word, which eschews laissez faire and libertinism in favor of societal curbs on errant individual behavior. Fascism requires that a people be united via bonds of blood and soil. That's a physical impossibility in multi-racial and -ethnic New York City. Ultimately, he's clamping down on black and Hispanic criminals in NYC while couching it in ethnically neutral terms.
Good idea, but ACLU will jump on this issue in favor of the criminal elements that inhabit public housing projects.
“AND while you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct, since voting would be a conflict of interest. You will abstain from voting while you are receiving a Govt welfare check. If you want to vote, then GET A JOB.”
If they want government assistance, they will also have to get a voter ID card.
That will explode the heads on the left.
If govt. can require such intrusions for welfare, they can require them for govt.-funded retirement programs as well.
Fixed it for you, Rudybot. ;)
Been tried in two states -- the welfare recipients had lower positives than the general population. And the tests cost more than the savings. Program dropped.
600,000 people in NYC are living in public housing ???
How is this sustainable??
And they are damn skippy correct...except for one part (IMHO): violation of ‘Rights’. It is not the gov’t $$, it is the TAXPAYER $$. That ‘charity’ comes from the end of a gun. Don’t like the new rules, tough sh!te.
LOVE the barracks idea. Good enough for your (wo)men, good enough for the brood mares and the like. BARE minimum and ‘free’ cleaning of parks, streets, rest stops, etc.
Yep, that last part’d get ‘em off ‘assistance’ damn quick
He can get their fingerprints offa discarded jumbo sodas.
600,000 out of 8,000,000 is NOT 5%. It is more like 7.5% and in reality it is probably closer to 10% as the census department couldn’t count to eleven without taking off their shoes.
Bloomberg leading the charge to shove rhe maases into Agenda 21 U.N. style citizenship...
If you live in public housing, then the government is paying your rent. And since you are relying on the government for your survival, then you have given them the right to run your life and tell you what to do. Deal with it, losers.
If you can’t or won’t protect yourself you do as you are told or die.
un frickin believable
If you receive SS and Medicare, then the government is paying for your retirement.
And since you are relying on the government for your survival, then you have given them the right to run your life and tell you what to do.
Are you willing to say the same about SS and Medicare?
THIS, they complain about. Has Bloomie finally gone too far? I bet they will still vote for RATS all the way! /sarcasm
I would have no problem with Social Security and Medicare requiring fingerprints. I had to be fingerprinted to work in the public safety field and didn’t mind a bit, because I knew it was required in order to work in that field, as it should be for any public employee or official. And because I’m not a criminal, I have nothing to worry about.
As far as I’m concerned, Bloomberg should also be requiring DNA, and anyone immigrating to this country legally or otherwise should be likewise required to comply. We have too much freedom for freeloaders, and not enough for people who take care of themselves and their families.
That is - if there are any jobs to get. Have you forgotten - we are living in the Obama economy? I have much to say on your tyrannical point of view, but will refrain at this point in time.
Some recipients do buy food for their kids, so in essence, it will be the kids who go hungry. People need to stop and think before they pop off at the mouth about every issue.
Why not go after other issues where your tax money goes - such as foreign aid to countries who hate us? There are a list of them, yet people want to bi*** about food stamps - as if they want to control what others can and can’t do. Last time I checked that was the mantra of the left.
Yes, there is fraud with the food stamp program, but there is with every program - yet so many on here rant and rave over this. Could it be that you resent helping others who are less fortunate? If so, then you really aren’t compassionate people. We’ve never had a say where our tax dollars go and yet they go to Planned Parenthood as well.
In a utopic world, there would be plenty for everyone - jobs, food, houses, cars, etc, but we don’t live in a perfect world, do we? How many on here actually are willing to sustain a family of four with food for 3 or more years? Some of you may help out at Christmas time, but other than that - nada! People need to eat all year round. So go ahead and throw your rotten tomatoes at me - I’ve been in the trenches and have seen it all -and many families need the help they receive from the food stamps - and those I’ve met aren’t milking the system - they have lost their jobs - gone through a divorce and have kids to feed and clothe and keep a roof over their heads.
Over and out~
Notice Bloomberg’s words - who are you and why are you here? Isn’t that what George Zimmerman was trying to find out when he was so brutally attacked?
The difference is that people have paid into SS and Medicare - the government isn’t giving them anything they haven’t contributed to. The government gives a very poor return on the money put into these programs - where has the rest gone?
And people who have lost their jobs and now receiving food stamps have also paid into that program when they didn’t need it.
Such judgmental people on here - there might come a time when some of you who sit in your ivory towers and throw stones will find yourself in the same boat. No wonder people who are having a hard time don’t vote for conservatives. They are scared and from the posts I’ve read on this forum - they should be.
I worked for many years and paid into programs for others to receive food stamps and yet I didn’t mind. My taxes also support public housing, abortions and grants to study the mating habits of praying mantis’s. Yet, more people harp on food stamps than anything else. Just because you may see someone driving an expensive car when they leave the grocery doesn’t mean they didn’t have that car before they lost their job.
People in the projects always blame the cops there is too much crime. But whenever a crime happens and the cops show up, the story they hear is “I dint see nuffins.”
Earned, vs. unearned? I don't think so. Apples and oranges.
SS and Medicare are simply federal programs like myriad others created by Congress. It controls those purse strings just like NYC controls the purse strings of public housing.
If NYC has such authority, then Congress also has authority to impose conditions on beneficiaries of its programs.
For which you paid all your working life, and the government pissed away the funds in wasteful spending.
Congress can regulate SS with regards to age, benefit amounts, who is entitled to spousal benefits, etc, despite being "earned".
If Congress can do that with "earned" benefits, what's to stop them from imposing other regulations on recipients?
How does that matter with regard to governmental authority?
If Congress can force SS and Medicare on you, then what's to stop it from from imposing conditions on you in order to receive those benefits?
Your reasoning smacks of more government intrusion into people’s lives. You call yourself a conservative? If so, then I suggest you do some critical thinking before trying to impose more rules and regulations on people. If this is your stance, then you might be better off at DU or Huffington Post with those who want to rule over others and tell them how to live.
To throw a little wood on the fire, all women who are getting ANY government money, Pell grants, section 8, WICS EBTS, small business loans, etc, should be required to get abortions if they get pregnant, or lose the benefits they already get!
If they could afford a child, then they obviously don’t need government aid.
That does not make sense. My reasoning just shows what follows when you cede more power to government.
If you support government authority to require people to give up basic constitutional rights to receive welfare, then you have no principled argument against similar intrusions in other programs that government created and regulates - like SS and Medicare.
I want to abolish all such programs not in keeping with the Constitution. Click on my name to see my outlook on such matters.
If you support government authority to require people to give up basic constitutional rights in order to receive welfare,
LOL! Good one!
not opposed to people getting food stamps to “feed their kids”
opposed to food stamps being used to buy junk food and other luxuries and being accepted at race tracks and the like
we all know that abuse is a problem, we have all seen it, and it is not hard to fix
a govt that can dictate what your kid gets served for lunch can dictate what healthy foods food stamps can buy. we can all break the code on moochelle Obama’s fixation on obesity - it aint rich white people
What you want and what you’ll get are 2 different things. Let’s see now - how can provide for the general welfare +written in the Preamble and in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution be interpreted?
I’m just messing with you. Of course, these words don’t mean welfare, but try to convince low information voters of this fact. They hear the word welfare - and their lights go on.
This is a very deep subject and I’m not going to waste any more time on it. If people would help out others less fortunate on a daily basis - then perhaps there would be no need for government programs. But, alas - this isn’t the case. People hoard for themselves and that isn’t the Christian thing to do either. So when people aren’t charitable toward others - government steps in.
These programs - like them or not - aren’t going any where unless they go broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.