Why should I have to work hard to pay my mortgage when my tax dollars go to government projects to help other people with their living expenses? Is this beautiful? On the surface it seems a lot is wrong, and in some cases it is, but it is important to know and understand when and why these programs were first established and who the beneficiaries were earlier in history. The country must be judged equally according to the principle of equality, and to believe in this. Therefore, in order to justify public housing policies in the era of the Great Depression (used for the “temporary poor”), we must also accept policies of the present era.
It is important to first discuss how public housing is defined. Commonly known as “public housing”, it is quite the opposite. Public housing is defined as housing the poor. It focuses on housing in dedicated families and usually does not have a fixed income, but has a place. the rent is based on the individual monthly income of the family, or it can also be paid by government policies. Public housing is most often found in larger cities in apartments or multi-family houses.
Public housing is not a new phenomenon and has been instituted in many other countries besides the United States . The history of public housing “goes back to the New Deal’s Public Works Administration, whose housing division built 21,000 units since 1937.) came the Wagner-Steagall Act of 1937, which united-states-history, the ability to make construction personnel for specially created local housing authorities and subsidies for housing authorities … could provide income to keep the poor levels ” (Freedman, 1969, p.2). During World War II, a large force of government housing for war It was built by workers, “with more than 170,000 new permanent units, some of which were occupied in the post-war public housing program” (Freedman, 1969, p. 3).
Public housing became the major issue at the end of the Great Depression. Unemployment was at an all-time high, leaving many Americans with nothing. As unemployment rose and incomes fell, many families could not afford any kind of housing and were forced to live in rundown tenements, resulting in the emergence of urban slums. To regulate this, the Housing Act of 1937 was passed “to relieve the present and frequent unemployment and to cure the unsafe and insanity of the housing conditions and the acute want of decent, safe, and healthful dwellings for the families of the (Bratt, 1989, p. 55). This new government policy quickly angered many owners of real estate a> because they argued that the government would drive real estate prices down from the law of supply and demand. To accommodate the private market, the new legislation included “equivalent elimination” that required local housing authorities to remove a substandard or unsafe dwelling unit for each new one. public housing could replace odd units, but could not increase the overall supply of housing, since it could drive out income in the private market (Bratt, 1989, p. 56). In addition, the Housing Act of 1937 created United States Federal Housing Authority (named the Federal Housing Administration in 1942, then the Public Housing Administration in 1947) (Federal, RHOL, 2006).
As the Great Depression wore on, many financially stable families continued to use public housing as a means of saving money . Families now had enough income to satisfy most rental or mortgage contracts, but could still be found living in public housing. Again, this angered many real capitalists in the private market, contending that the profit of housing in 1937 was added again. The government agrees that, in view of this, new provisions need to be made, so that one can separately control public housing subsidies. The Housing Act of 1949 “limited public housing to low-income people by requiring the highest incomes to be 20 percent lower than the lowest prevailing rents for decent housing in the private market, and by allowing the eviction of above-mentioned families.” (Bratt, 1989, p. 58). This section was recently created as a way to make public housing available to the poor.
Today, public housing is governed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, also known as TESTA. There are currently approximately 1.3 million families living in public housing in the US and over 3,300 housing agencies (HUD, 2006). Local hification agent certifies that the applicant meets eligibility requirements based on annual income, health conditions (elderly, disabled, or low family income), and citizenship or immigration status. To qualify, an applicant’s lower income must be eighty percent of the median income for county residents, or fifty percent of the median income for the lowest applicant (HUD, 2006). After qualifying, the waiting list can be very long and overwhelming for some applicants, so not all are placed safely. .
At the beginning of this book I asked a question. I started consulting this paper with that question, “Why should I have to work hard when my tax dollars will go to a government plan to help other people with their living expenses?” This problem is one of the main reasons for what is considered a public housing shortage. If anyone was asked about the government’s Medicare program, it would undoubtedly be in favor of it. We all age, we all anticipate retirement. We also anticipate the need for some kind of Medicare assistance in the future in our personal lives, so it directly affects us. Medicare cuts across the lines of rich and poor because we will all need help dealing with the ever-increasing costs of medical care. Not everyone needs public housing, and most people never need any of the money taken from their taxes for public housing. This makes getting funding for public housing very difficult.
In 1965 Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act, two different bills, the “aid to education” and the Medicare program (HUD, 2006). In the same session, Congress passed a housing tax relief bill by the widest possible margin, and concluded its session by refusing to appropriate the money for the account. Congressional behavior is symptomatic of the state of public housing public housing in the United States: as the desire to expand and implement the public grows. interests in many new directions, there is no similar willingness to advance and sustain public housing programs” (Pynoos, 1973, p.114).
Many beliefs about public housing are based on what is worthy and what is not. When we consider programs as education provisions in 1965, it was established that people should not lose their rights. for education according to their financial status. It doesn’t matter if you are poor or rich, if you work hard to get an education, everything possible will be done to help you achieve your goal. The key word here is “works”. The government rewards each person for their work in something, but if the individual’s grades are not satisfactory or are extinguished, the reward is no longer given. That is, everyone is worthy of a reward for their efforts, but they are also imputed and their financial reward is based on a certain respect for the rule. Even once individuals achieve their goal (i.e. a college degree), benefits cease and graduates are expected to provide for themselves. Not all public housing regulations live up to these standards.
Dislike public housing because it is supposed to reward an undeserving person. But he foresaw nothing to be done for the purpose of each one, and more often than not, those rewards followed. “Job retardation programs, for example, are self-limiting, that is, once everyone is restrained, he blocks the help, and again it is on his own. Public housing does not have a self-limiting mechanism for the lower class, if the family’s income remains below a certain level, they still own their apartment holds… If family income is an indicator of achievement, then public assistance remains an indicator even after failure of achievement” (Pynoos, 1973, p. 115). A better way of saying this might be that under current public housing laws, individuals (or families) have no incentive to work, because if their income rises too much, they actually lose their housing. Without stimulus, we will always look at public housing as a failure.
Looking at the information about public housing, I can see where people are having difficulty. My opinion is very similar to most of the state. I worked very hard to get where I am. It took countless hours of study, work, and pain to achieve my goals, and it will take a lifetime of work to achieve the rest of them. Why should a portion of my blood and my sweat be weighed from my cannon, which would not have provided for an invincible road, but rather to sleep under a covered bridge? The only problem with my theory is that, like many people, I think that public housing helps the poor and not necessarily helps the truly disabled, which is one of the downsides to assisted public housing. I think that in order for recipients of public assistance to qualify better, and therefore increase overall public assistance, Congress and TESTA need to rely on public housing and punish those who do not make efforts to eliminate their need for assistance. I work on the books of Esdr. For I think that we really value what we have, such as food on the table and a roof over our heads, not given to us, but earned.
Works Citation
Bratt, Rachel. Rebuild Low Income Housing Excolo. 1st Ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.
“Journal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” RHOL. 20 Oct 2006
Freeman, Leonard. Public Housing Politics of Poverty. 1st Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969.
Meehan, Eugene. Public housing system 1st Ed. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, 1975.
Muth, Richard. Public Housing-Economic Evaluation. 1st Ed. Washington, DC: AEI Institute, 1973.
Pynoos, John. Urban Housing in America. 1st Ed. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1973.
Stegman, Michael. Housing and the Economic-American Dilemma. 1st Ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970.
Struyk, Raymond. A New System of Public Housing 1st Ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1980.
