Low-income housing for seniors slated

sig (anonymous) says...

We should only help the elderly, children and folks with disabilities. The rest of the welfare scumbags need to go out and support themselves.

I am glad that they are going to assist senior citizens and I hope they build a first class facility for them.

July 28, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

moonpie (anonymous) says...

I agree but what if the now "seniors" have been welfare scumbags their entire lives? Is this the reward for doing so?

July 28, 2009 at 6:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

mqc (anonymous) says...

I agree with sig, but moonpie, you make an excellent point.

July 28, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

laurasmorris (anonymous) says...

Sic obviously feels compelled to make the same comment on every item in the paper without any real content--oh, that's "sig" I just thought it was "sic" because the comment is so sick.

Families in public housing are families who pay rent but don't earn enough to have a decent place to live without some assistance. Since 2000, incomes in SC have DECLINED, while rental costs have increased. The Charleston area has the worst income to housing cost ratios in the State. More and more working families are seeing their paychecks not large enough to meet the cost of living.

Children and disabled are supposed to be housed without their parents? That's a great expression of family values!

July 28, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...

Well said lauramorris.

July 28, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

Sorry lauramorris, but a great expression of family values would be showing your children and grandchildren that you made the correct choices in life, regardless of what situation befalls on you. It would be nice for those children to see that their parents did what they had to do to take care of themselves, relied on nobody, and didn't have to take from people that didn't even know they existed.

There is nothing wrong with receiving help, if the people that are giving you help are aware and even more so offering it. It is wrong for someone to enjoy the fruits of my labor when they never even planted a tree to enjoy theirs.

Someone who makes $25000 a year can live there, but someone who makes $26000 can't? Explain that to me. What is the definition of need. There are people in other countries making far less than this, and still surviving.

July 28, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

no part stomping on the poor and disabled again!

Every article that covers people in need and he says "I got mine,they can rot."

July 28, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

"nopart - I want nopart of talking to you.
You posted it for all to see, so live with your own words, but don't bother addressing another post to me."

Posted by YouKnowMe on July 24 at 12:11 p.m.

I've kept up my end of the deal, you do the same. I nor anyone else has time for closed-mindedness and mis-comprehension of taxes and the illusion of forced charity.

I have to help pay to get my 60 year-old aunt from Florida back to SC today, and then help find a place for her to live. Is it going to hurt me, yes, especially with bills coming up next week. That is my family, I choose to take care of them, call this selfish, I call it being responsible. My family won't let her take taxpayer assistance, because we don't believe in it. That's right, we have pride and personal responsibility. This is a prime example of why my taxes shouldn't be looted and given to people that I don't know. Because when someone I do know needs help, I'd like the oppurtunity to do so without having to worry if I make enough to support everyone else first i.e. taxes.

Spare me your ignorant insults and misconceived judgements. Don't respond to this nor any of my future posts.

Have a good life.

July 28, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCHoser (anonymous) says...

It's not that they can rot, but why should they be able to live on Daniel's Island while some of us work our butts off but can't? I have no problem helping those in need, but why do the needy have to have everything that those who have worked hard get? And in a case such as this, even those who are supporting them can't even get it!

July 28, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

Nopart - trying to make himself look like a caring soul - WRONG!

Selfish sleaze ball that would walk right past your disabled child rather than offer a helping hand.

Here's hoping he never has to deal with this problem and face the future of need.

I will dog you every time you post on this subject, just because and to make sure the light of day shines right down into your stingy blight of a soul!

Peace out scum!

July 28, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

laurasmorris (anonymous) says...

"...a great expression of family values would be showing your children and grandchildren that you made the correct choices in life, regardless of what situation befalls on you. It would be nice for those children to see that their parents did what they had to do to take care of themselves."

The vast majority of people getting housing assistance are doing just that: making a choice to accept help with housing because that's what they have to do to take care of their family. Everyone isn't blessed with the options you and I have, and it is most often not because poor choices were made but some circumstance of birth or life experience. I am blessed with never having to make a choice of accepting help from strangers, but I would like to think that if that is what I had to do to take care of myself and my family, I would swallow my pride and do it. By the way, I also try to put a little aside so I can be my brother's keeper when the need arises; this is part of my family's values that I am pleased to pass along to my children and grandchildren.

July 28, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCHoser (anonymous) says...

So you wouldn't mind helping people live on Daniel's Island? What about a nice condo on IOP? Or how about Wild Dunes? This isn't about helping people, it's about the level of help and living within your means. I agree-not everyone who receives or needs help is in that position due to their own fault, but irregardless they should live within their means, not above those who they receive help from.

July 28, 2009 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

nopartisan_noproblem, should change his name to
"No I am not partisan, just selfish and self absorded, and BTW your problem not mine".....I know a little long, but right on spot either way.

July 28, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

I see YouOweMe and GuidedbyOthersHardwork, the famous handout butt buddies are working together again to brainlessly bash someone as opposed to providing intellectual debate and reasoning behind anything they post.

How would expect someone to feel insulted by being referred to as self-reliant and independent. I'm sorry your lives aren't complete or efficient without others.

LauraMorris, thank you for an educated and understandable response to my post, if only others could have the most minute understanding of a valid opinion or viewpoint.

You know you have rendered someone pointless on an issue when their emotions overwhelmingly shadow their logic.

July 28, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

I have worked with and cared for untold numbers of disabled children over the years. I have seen the suffering and hardship they and their families face every day. Days off from work, hours and hours and hours at clinics, pain, surgeries, medicines, physical therapy::..

These children were born disabled with no choice given to them to "make their lives better". Is it emotional? You bet you azz it is emotional.

Some of these children have perfectly "normal" IQs and are trapped in a body that cannot listen to them. Others are so sever and profoundly disabled that they have no concept of time or space.

So the next time you say someone "should pull themselves up by their boot straps" think about the little 4 year old girl with no feet for her boots.

But, nopart wants charities to take care of these children. And what about the seniors that have paid into social security all their lives, are we just suppose to kick them to the curb and send them to the local food bank when they are hungry? If everyone had the same feelings as nopart NO ONE would get any help.

Come on nopart - walk a mile along side me and see if it isn't emotional. And if it isn't than I know you are a heartless scumbag, like I already think....prove me wrong!

July 28, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

stech (anonymous) says...

I agree with SCHoser - I would love to live on IOP (or Kiawah or Sullivan's or....) , but simply cannot afford to. I deal with it!

July 28, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CombatCoastie (anonymous) says...

YouKnow, I'm pretty sure that NoParNoProb is not referring to the mentally or physically handicapped population. He's talking about those parents who have neither the drive nor motivation to push themselves or their children up the economic ladder. They have become so complacent living off free government handouts and welfare programs that they have lost (or never gained) that will to succeed and become wholly independent. EVERY person in the United States has the opportunity to do well socially and economically, regardless of his/her background. It's pure laziness to rely on the government. The welfare programs we have are great and should stay in place to help those who need immediate but temporary assistance. The physically and mentally challenged do not fit into that category. They rightfully deserve assistance from the rest of us, and I think it would be very hard to find someone who disagrees with that.

July 28, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

Combat - sorry dude, you are wrong. Go back and read his posts from a month or so ago. He states clearly that all people who are in need should be helped by charity and he does not think he should be "forced" to give to that said charity.

July 28, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

"But, nopart wants charities to take care of these children"

YouKnowMe, I've already tried to explain it to you before it's pointless. But I will try again.

As much you think I am against helping people. I am not. I would just appreciate the choice to do so. Why is that so much to ask for. Please explain to me how they are not being helped by charities already, forced charity, but charity nonetheless.

"If everyone had the same feelings as nopart NO ONE would get any help."

Let me clarify my feelings. My feelings are help people that you choose to help and not being forced to. If over half of the nation voted for Obama and a democratically controlled congress (I'm going to reach and say it was for their policies), then obviously you have more than half of America that is willing to do anything to help those in need (without counting the people that didn't vote that way.) These statistics would more than take care of those that are truly in need.

When I read you completely going against my views and ideas, I feel as though what you are trying to say is this.

If and only if the government forcibly takes money from someone, will it be used to help the sick, poor, disabled, and elderly. If Americans were allowed to keep all tax money that went towards welfare causes, close to no one would give to charities. They would be selfish and keep all of their money to theirselves.

This completely downplays your party's claims of their true beliefs and values that now hold the majority in America. You are basically saying that it should be illegal to be "selfish" or "self absorbed" as I was referred to, which the gov. completely agrees with, shown through taxation, it just isn't in writing.

By you're claims that selfishness is the utmost despisable action by a human being, I believe you have underestimated what selfishness could be determined by. If you purchase or obtain anything that is above absolutely necessity i.e. car that costs more other than the fact that it is driveable, a dwelling that has more than a bed and a pot to piss in, clothes that cost more due to factors aside from cloth cost, this is displaying selfishness.

You are basically attempting to describe a limit on selfishness, and that limit being set and implemented by the federal government. I am sorry I just don't agree.

July 28, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

COMBAT - told you so......justify his stance? Not a chance!

July 28, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

You're hopeless, YouKnowMe, you really are. Combat, I would definitely help the disabled and the elderly whether forced to or not. As for the parents you referred to, I certainly would not. I am trying to describe the taxation and welfare process and how it cripples motivation and personal responsibility (even in regards of charity). Pay no attention to YouOweMe, he can respond with nothing but insults especially when someone makes a good point. He's a blind sheep, what can you do. As long as he get his check, he'll keep fighting for it.

July 28, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

YouKnowMe (anonymous) says...

And once again you are wrong. No government assistance for this old dog!

So you go right ahead and try to fit me into your little box. But it will not work, I am not like you, no lable will stick and no party defines me.

GOP - Grumpy OLD People!

July 28, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CombatCoastie (anonymous) says...

I'm not going to get between the two of you. As I mentioned earlier, the welfare process does degrade motivation for those who choose to ride the system full-time. I am all for time limits, drug tests, and more stringent restriction placed on those receiving government aid who are physically and mentally capable of working and being independent. Those who are handicapped don't have that luxury and I do feel the government, along with various charitable organization, ought to assist.

I still need more information on how to handle the elderly population. With better health care and standards of living we are living longer. But, people are still forced into retirement at relatively early ages and it's hard for the elderly to get part-time jobs, let alone start a new full-time career.

I think those who have no family due to certain circumstances and have paid into the system their entire lives do deserve some help from Uncle Sam. I would like to say that we, as a people, will eagerly and willingly take care of our senior citizens. They raised us and gave us the means to succeed. So why not return the favor? This wasn't an issue years ago, when families all lived close together and looked out for each other out of love and habit. This is a new issue, resulting from sprawl/migration, better standards of living, less focus on family, and less face-to-face interaction between people.

Talking on the telephone with Aunt Doris used to be a big event. Driving two hours to Cousin Henry's house was a monthly trip. Everyone would talk and interact and really get to know how each other was doing. Now it's a quick cell phone message, a short e-mail, or simply a nursing home bill. Rather than pushing the government to spend more on the elderly, why not push ourselves, our families, and charities to get back in touch with our own flesh and blood, along with their friends and neighbors who might not have families of their own?

Ok, time to be productive again. Good luck.

July 28, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...

Talk about someone letting their emotions gets the best of them:..LMAO. No_part, if I had the time to debate, I would be more than happy to do so. This time, I just felt like calling you out on being the super selfish person that you are, nothing more, nothing less (though I did think that I did it in a witty way). So am I playing nice? Maybe not, yet at least with my comment, I easily deduced from your post that you are one selfish person (a very logical conclusion:..your post exhibits a selfish mentality, therefore you are selfish, logic 101). On the contrary, unlike your childish and juvenile low blows that lacked any semblance of logic or cleverness, yet it did reek with way off the mark assumptions about me being not being self reliant person. Yep, no logic there.

July 28, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...

guided by, do you disagree with the second half of my 12:04 post. If so what part and an opposing claim if possible. No pressure, it is just a few are so quick and feel so justified to deem someone selfish, I would like to know your definition of it. Is it to give or to give more? Is there a certain level that makes you unselfish? Is it if what I give feels sufficient to me, or is it what the gov. and others feel is sufficient? Just curious, cause i obviously need to work on this personal problem.

July 28, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...

An urban community like Daniel Island needs residents at all economic levels so that the jobs on the island can be filled by residents. This results in a stronger, more diverse community.

The maximum income for that Apartment complex is twice the annual earnings at minimum wage and well above anything a welfare program is going to pay. People living there would have to work and they can find work within walking distance, so that they can avoid the unsupportable cost of an automobile, which often consumes 30% or more of a working class family's income.

To demand that working class people live long distances away, but still show up to cook your meals, is arrogant and unreasonable.

Someday, the price of gas is going to gu up again, way up. If we don't build at least some of our communities so they're not utterly dependent on the car, there will be hell to pay.

July 28, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SCHoser (anonymous) says...

I disagree WJ-there are already many homes/townhouses there with young people fully capable of filling the needed jobs there without tapping into a retirement home. The place is crawling with high schoolers and recent grads, and it's not like it's the other side of the world as far as distance. I still say we should help people out, but be a bit more modest with the location-keep expenses down somewhat.

July 28, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )