Feed the homeless to the hungry.
I believe most people who stay in the situation for long choose to be homeless. Perhaps that's the problem that needs solving.What about individuals that lack adequate social support networks? What about individuals with conditions that preclude signficant and consistent work? What about individuals with insufficent economic resources to afford the costs of regular housing? What about the rising cost of housing in many metro areas and lack of economic opportunties in rural areas? Why should a society punish those individuals that could not, due to an uncontrollable circumstance, signficantly contribute to society?
My impressions-I can understand this position quite well. The problem with many jobs is that the wage does not pay sufficently for housing. In addition, many renters now require credit checks which often show any prior eviction events. This unfortunate circumstance of renting often precludes any individual with poor credit from having potential landlords consider their applications.
1) It became more of an issue when Reagan opened the mental hospitals. There isn't enough mental health treatment available, voluntary or involuntary. It's a feminine canine to talk my psychotic cousin into committing himself when the serpents are coming out of his ear and the bacteria are swarming all over him, and he's running naked for his life. Solve that and we'll reduce our shooting problem, too.
2) War on Drugs is a failed approach.
3) JOBS! There need to be more available .
Deal with that stuff, and the problem will be cut down to size where programs can house or shelter people that pass drug tests.
A pertinent example of the "Housing First" model exists in Salt Lake City, Utah. This program has reduced by approximately 70% the annual homeless rate in Utah. It would appear an effective and cost efficent manner through which to help eliminate an issue that plagues many areas.
The three primary sub groups within the homeless population are transient, periodic, and chronic. "Housing First" programs tend to target individuals within the chronically homeless population.
A pertinent example of the "Housing First" model exists in Salt Lake City, Utah. This program has reduced by approximately 70% the annual homeless rate in Utah. It would appear an effective and cost efficent manner through which to help eliminate an issue that plagues many areas.
*sigh*
Propoganda and lies.
Utah's housing first initiative targets a very specific portion of the overall homeless population. 4%, specifically.
OF THAT 4%, since 2005, that target population has dropped 70% (but is back on the rise), however there are overlapping programs that address this 4%, so to claim it's all due to housing first is just bad statistics.
I can link you to the 2014 Utah Homelessness report that goes over this tomorrow if you REALLY want.
The argument raised is simply the cry of not in my backyard/neighborhood.It wasn't an argument as to how things should be, it was just an anecdote as to how things once worked. Just as my initial response was qualified with the words "My impressions"
What type of long term solution would simply moving an individual from one neighborhood to another accomplish?Perhaps you never lived in Appalachia. Communities at that time and place functioned on volunteers. One paid guy in my hometown to run the backhoe and shovel by hand to fix the streets, remove the snow, and keep the water system operational. Everything else was done with volunteers- emergency services, continuing education, community outreach. No local police, have to call the State Police and wait. School District is a better term than neighborhood. At that time there were no drug rehab or psychological services, so staying there was no long term solution for anybody with such needs.
It is simply passing on the problem to another group without addressing the underlying issues.
I would also like to remind many individuals that religious organizations tend to have ulterior agendas that drive the desire to help the poor.
"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."
The government defines an individual as homeless through the following passage from the 1987 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act: "An individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; [or] (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is- (A) a supervised or publicly operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); (B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or (C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings."
The three primary sub groups within the homeless population are transient, periodic, and chronic. "Housing First" programs tend to target individuals within the chronically homeless population.
"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."
Reminds me of that scene in the first Rambo movie where the sheriff rides Stallone over the bridge. ;lol
"So you would help them out, or you would help them out.?"
"Exactly."
I saw the trailer for Rambo. It appeared to be about a body builder clobbering the Russians with dynamite arrows in Viet Nam. It was too ridiculous to pay to see, or even watch on TV for free, so I never saw it, or the sequels.
A study of American Colonial history will reveal that Benjamin Franklin went to England as a representative of the Colonies.Its the predatory banking system that causes these problems. Building houses for them wont help nor will importing
The English officials asked how it was the Colonies managed to collect enough taxes to build poor houses, and how they were able to handle the great burden of caring for the poor. Franklin's reply was most revealing: "We have no poor houses in the Colonies, and if we had, we would have no one to put in them, as in the Colonies there is not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds." Think long and hard about this. In the American colonies before the American Revolution, there was "not a single unemployed man, no poor and no vagabonds". -- no one on Welfare, no one on Social Security, no homeless, no income tax, no alphabet agencies, No IRS, BATF, FBI, DEA, CIA, HEW, OSHA, SBA, and on and on and on to provide for the "general welfare" of our villages, towns, cities and states. How did Benjamin Franklin explain this to the British officials of his day?
How would he explain it to today's lawyers, judges, politicians and other government officials? "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."
It was right after this that the British started the events that led to the revolution.QuoteBenjamin Franklin identified this as the real reason for the War of Independence:
"The refusal of King George to operate an HONEST colonial MONEY SYSTEM which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the manipulators was probably the prime cause of the Revolution."
"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dis-satisfaction." -
Here we see the cause of poverty, unemployment and financial insecurity.
There can be no personal liberty without financial freedom.
-Benjamin Franklin
.It's mostly drugs and being crazy that drives people into the streets for long, but nobody's listening to me, even though I got that direct from New York City homeless...
.When did they rename the Cheneyvilles, Mr. Trash Talk?
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."The founding fathers saw this coming centuries ago. Its what we fought a revolution to be free of.
...It's mostly drugs and being crazy that drives people into the streets for long, but nobody's listening to me, even though I got that direct from New York City homeless...That certainly is a cause, but it does not explain a logical manner in which to help resolve this issue. I concede that it is impossible to help everybody, but also I acknowledge the fact that a signficant number may have the possibility for a decent life in semi-consistent care facilities. A major issue that arises is the fact that the chronically homeless often have a revolving door policy with this problem. In other words, they resolve the issue for awhile, but then some event happens that overburdens an already precarious sitaution. The result is they become homeless again.
You mean you're blaming Obama for Reagan deregulating the banks in the 80s?Pointing fingers and placing blame on actions that have already occured will not resolve the issue. The "blame game" simply diverts attention and energy from the action of finding practical solutions that will help resolve the issue in the long term.
-Henceforth I am going to deploy this smilie ;hypocrite every time someone on the right posts here to blame Obama for something Republicans are guilty of more and first -if Obama is to blame at all. I'm sick of the Big Lie.
Different people are homeless for different reasons, and those call for different solutions. I'd say that anybody who can't find a job should be provided with the necessary income and job-hunting help until they can find a job (and similarly if the only jobs they can find are ones that don't work for them for legitimate reasons). If the problem is mental illness or drug use, then support should be made conditional on them (or an appropriate guardian where relevant) signing whatever is necessary to be allowed to treat them without them being able to back out afterward.The proposal appears fairly reasonable to this particular individual. After admitting that rights should come with responsiblities, it becomes necessary to provides rebuttals for a few common counter-arguments. One such counterargument might include the claim that such a proposal would violate the rights and liberties of an individual. This same argument might further claim that such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will. Furthermore, they may argue that such a system might place an undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free and private organizations often face a shortfall of excess revenue. This individual maytherefore argue that this proposal both infringes on the freedom of an individual to make decisions about his or her health treatments, and opens a public system to potentially abusive practices.
undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free
such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will
Different people are homeless for different reasons, and those call for different solutions. I'd say that anybody who can't find a job should be provided with the necessary income and job-hunting help until they can find a job (and similarly if the only jobs they can find are ones that don't work for them for legitimate reasons). If the problem is mental illness or drug use, then support should be made conditional on them (or an appropriate guardian where relevant) signing whatever is necessary to be allowed to treat them without them being able to back out afterward.The proposal appears fairly reasonable to this particular individual. After admitting that rights should come with responsiblities, it becomes necessary to provides rebuttals for a few common counter-arguments. One such counterargument might include the claim that such a proposal would violate the rights and liberties of an individual.
This same argument might further claim that such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will.
Furthermore, they may argue that such a system might place an undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free and private organizations often face a shortfall of excess revenue.
This individual maytherefore argue that this proposal both infringes on the freedom of an individual to make decisions about his or her health treatments
So you think your right not to be annoyed by bums being around overrides their right to not have the State mess with their heads?
I'm not defending criminal behavior or anything that's an immediate danger to others or themselves - but the bar should be high, and they have a right to make bad choices and be miserable.
Nothing I do is going to cause no harm. Nothing.
Where does the needs of the group stop impinging on my personal freedoms?
The Man may not mess with my mind for any reason, sans my uncoerced consent - screw everyone if they think otherwise for a second.
I must agree with Yitzi that the national average cost of leaving an individual homeless is approximately forty-five thousand U.S. dollars per year per person in public services while providing housing and medical services for said individuals averages approxmately forty-three thousand dollars per year person.So you think your right not to be annoyed by bums being around overrides their right to not have the State mess with their heads?
If said messing is nothing more than curing real problems, arguably. If you also replace "annoyed by bums being around" with "having to help support them", then definitely.QuoteI'm not defending criminal behavior or anything that's an immediate danger to others or themselves - but the bar should be high, and they have a right to make bad choices and be miserable.
But not to cause hardship for others.
The only reason they have a right to make bad choices is because it doesn't harm others; once that is no longer true, they no longer have such a right.
If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.The above humanism is a foreign concept to me. I simply desire to have what is best both for these individuals and for the cost towards society. The best option appears to presently lean towards housing since it reduces emergency medical care and law enforcement costs for society while improving the opportunties of said individuals.
If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.
The problem with the fending for themselves option arises because many areas make that action nearly impossible without violating a law.If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.
2. That's why they get a choice: They can be treated, or they can fend for themselves. However, their own wishes are not enough to justify a public burden.
I mean none of this as personally as it may sound, and I shout for emphasis/from passion, not actual anger.
You. will. RESPECT. my wishes about my life and my person, no matter how wrong I happen to be, or we WILL tangle. I'm speaking rhetorically, (if also truly) but the biggest difference between me and the people we're talking about is that I have a hermit cave to hide from the Group Mind in.
I've had pieces of this conversation with Dr. Buster's Daddy, both in argument and agreement. Coercion of ANY kind MUST always be the very last resort with the crazy ones who are not an immediate danger to themselves or others, or YOU ARE GUILTY OF ADVOCATING WHAT THEY"RE ON THE STREET TO AVOID.
It's complicated, is all. More complicated than you seem to see. They need your respect as fellow human beings, not just your compassion.
The problem with the fending for themselves option arises because many areas make that action nearly impossible without violating a law.If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.
2. That's why they get a choice: They can be treated, or they can fend for themselves. However, their own wishes are not enough to justify a public burden.
In Eugene, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee, for example, beggars were required to obtain licences, a process that requires being fingerprinted and photographed. Beggars were required to carry their photo-licences at all times. In Berkeley, California, and Cincinnati, Ohio, it became illegal to beg from anyone getting into or out of car, near an automatic teller machine, after 8 p.m., or within six feet of
any storefront. Baltimore banned panhandling altogether after dark. Proponents of the law said the
panhandlers disrupt people who want ‘to go to Little Italy at night to dine or to Fells Point to barhop’ (4).
Even many politically ‘left-leaning’ cities have begun to use the harsh policing approach. TheyThese particular examples of 'anti homeless' laws illustrate the fact that the homeless, while not completely without blame, have the tendency to receive the worse treatment by a society that tends to define an individual by the material possessions they own. This further penalizes the individuals that want to provide food to these individuals unless they purchase or work through the government.
include: Seattle; New Orleans; San Francisco; Denver; Asheville and Chapel Hill, North Carolina;
Santa Cruz, California; Austin, Teaxs; and Tucson and Tempe, Arizona.9 In a cross-section of fifty cities in 1999, 86 percent already had anti-begging ordinances and 73 percent had anti-sleeping laws
(National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999). The homeless immediately became
‘spatial anomalies’ in the landscape of the rapidly developing American city that was keen on
attracting corporate capital (Amster, 2002) (3-4)
FIRST.. let's establish this. If you do NOT own a place, you are homeless.
Economy/finance: Can we pull a decent source of living-wage jobs out of our butts?
QuoteFIRST.. let's establish this. If you do NOT own a place, you are homeless.
By those standards everyone in the USA is homeless. No one "owns" anything in this country we pay property taxes.
In other words we rent from the government.
QuoteEconomy/finance: Can we pull a decent source of living-wage jobs out of our butts?
Sure its easy. Get rid of the usury banking system. The debt goes away the jobs come back and people get off the streets.
I am pretty sure that in modern times taxes are justified by appeal to societal benefit and services, not by "the government owns your land and you're just renting it".Property taxes aren't supposed to exist at all. They are unconstitutional.
I'm pretty sure that the banking system is not why companies are willing to only hire a certain number of people and not more.
QuoteI am pretty sure that in modern times taxes are justified by appeal to societal benefit and services, not by "the government owns your land and you're just renting it".Property taxes aren't supposed to exist at all. They are unconstitutional.
We actually pay more in taxes than a medieval peasant did. They only paid about a third of their income.
QuoteI'm pretty sure that the banking system is not why companies are willing to only hire a certain number of people and not more.
Usury banking systems degrade the value of money over time. Meaning the longer the system stays in place the less your money its worth.
and its expressly forbidden in the Bible.
It causes the problems we see every day. In the 50's you could buy a house for cash. Try that now.
How so? Inflation degrades the value of money over time, but that's not intrinsically linked to the banking system.
QuoteHow so? Inflation degrades the value of money over time, but that's not intrinsically linked to the banking system.
Of course it is the fed reserve issues money at interest.
Our banking system is essentially a ponzi scheme.
The money becomes worth less and less until it is worth nearly nothing and the economy collapses.
Thats why the founding fathers fought for our colonial script. They treated money like a public utility
instead of a way to enslave the entire population with debt. As a result they didn't have the problems in
England.
The only way money is becoming worth less is when there's more of it to go around, and that won't make the economy collapse unless it happens really fast (which it isn't).
Usury is the original sin and the root cause of all our economic and political problems.
The truth is we have everything we need to create an interest-free money supply. An usury-free economy ends poverty and saves our souls in the process.
The love of money is the root of all evils. Usury is the weaponization of money love. It feeds the avarice of the usurer. It forces ever more debtors into ever more immoral behavior. It replaces love with commerce. It corrupts commerce, which becomes ever more exploitative. It rips apart the fabric of society and makes a mockery of any kind of social contract.
Billions of people live in abject poverty all over the world because of it. Entire communities, nations are gutted to pay the interest to the opulent. Nobody counts the billions dying prematurely from its effects.
Poor countries pay ten times more interest on their foreign debts than they receive development aid.
Even when not in debt, forty percent of our income is lost to interest passed on in prices by producers. The many pay anywhere between five and ten trillion per year to the wealthy. All other rents ultimately are based on cost for capital and would hardly exist without usury.
<It is the ultimate centralizer of power and it is global. It has been growing at a compound interest rate for centuries, and now this incredible cancer is ready to devour the host body.
The European nations put up $4.5 trillion in handouts, easy credit and guarantees to 'save' their banks and the euro. The Fed provided an unimaginable $16 trillion dollars in easy credit to its banking buddies. Much of it was never repaid. This is 'necessary' because without banks we would not have money. So the West put up $20 trillion to have some bits and bytes and paper and coins circulate to exchange goods and services.
Surely the end of our civilization is near when we allow such rapacious plunder while there is no money to save the poor from starvation and the Earth from pollution.
SENSELESS
We think: "without interest there will be no credit! I would not lend if I didn't get anything back."
But the Money Power doesn't lend anything!
Money is just bookkeeping and credit is an automatic result of double entry bookkeeping, which by its very nature knows debit and credit.
The problem is not the creation of money! Quite the opposite: it's marvelous that we never need to have a shortage of money.
The problem is when the bookkeeper starts raping the debitor with interest for no other reason than the associated minus. And takes all this interest himself. Just for the service of bookkeeping!
We pay $300k in interest in thirty years for our $200k mortgage which was created by entering some numbers in a computer bookkeeping application!
temple1.jpgJesus admonished us to lend freely, expecting nothing in return. The Vedas abhor usury. Moses forbade it. Half of the Q'uran is Allah threatening severe punishment for those taking Usury.
Money is bookkeeping. We don't need interest for savers. The bank doesn't need savers. Debit and Credit are the two sides of the coin in bookkeeping. They are automatic.
Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management; it is allowing vultures to do it.
The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of 'officialdom'.
Saying 'the market must do it' is saying the Plutocracy has been doing a good job over the last 5000 years.
We want interest-free mortgages, no income tax, no poverty. We want abundance, good will, a cultural rebirth, fairness and an end to Plutocracy.
Kill Usury!
...I'd swear this was anti-big business talk, von...You seem to have me mistaken for a republican lol.
QuoteThe only way money is becoming worth less is when there's more of it to go around, and that won't make the economy collapse unless it happens really fast (which it isn't).
The problem is everytime you loan out money at interest it degrades.
Here have an article.Quote
Usury is the original sin and the root cause of all our economic and political problems.
The truth is we have everything we need to create an interest-free money supply. An usury-free economy ends poverty and saves our souls in the process.
The love of money is the root of all evils. Usury is the weaponization of money love. It feeds the avarice of the usurer. It forces ever more debtors into ever more immoral behavior. It replaces love with commerce. It corrupts commerce, which becomes ever more exploitative. It rips apart the fabric of society and makes a mockery of any kind of social contract.
Billions of people live in abject poverty all over the world because of it. Entire communities, nations are gutted to pay the interest to the opulent. Nobody counts the billions dying prematurely from its effects.
Poor countries pay ten times more interest on their foreign debts than they receive development aid.
Even when not in debt, forty percent of our income is lost to interest passed on in prices by producers. The many pay anywhere between five and ten trillion per year to the wealthy. All other rents ultimately are based on cost for capital and would hardly exist without usury.
<It is the ultimate centralizer of power and it is global. It has been growing at a compound interest rate for centuries, and now this incredible cancer is ready to devour the host body.
The European nations put up $4.5 trillion in handouts, easy credit and guarantees to 'save' their banks and the euro. The Fed provided an unimaginable $16 trillion dollars in easy credit to its banking buddies. Much of it was never repaid. This is 'necessary' because without banks we would not have money. So the West put up $20 trillion to have some bits and bytes and paper and coins circulate to exchange goods and services.
Surely the end of our civilization is near when we allow such rapacious plunder while there is no money to save the poor from starvation and the Earth from pollution.QuoteSENSELESS
We think: "without interest there will be no credit! I would not lend if I didn't get anything back."
But the Money Power doesn't lend anything!
Money is just bookkeeping and credit is an automatic result of double entry bookkeeping, which by its very nature knows debit and credit.
The problem is not the creation of money! Quite the opposite: it's marvelous that we never need to have a shortage of money.
The problem is when the bookkeeper starts raping the debitor with interest for no other reason than the associated minus. And takes all this interest himself. Just for the service of bookkeeping!
We pay $300k in interest in thirty years for our $200k mortgage which was created by entering some numbers in a computer bookkeeping application!Quotetemple1.jpgJesus admonished us to lend freely, expecting nothing in return. The Vedas abhor usury. Moses forbade it. Half of the Q'uran is Allah threatening severe punishment for those taking Usury.
Money is bookkeeping. We don't need interest for savers. The bank doesn't need savers. Debit and Credit are the two sides of the coin in bookkeeping. They are automatic.
Yes, the volume must be managed, but that is unavoidable. No monetary system can exist without managing volume. The problem is not management; it is allowing vultures to do it.
The reason we have a boom-bust cycle is because we allowed private parties, banks, to manage the volume in their own interest. They set up Central Banks to create the illusion of 'officialdom'.
Saying 'the market must do it' is saying the Plutocracy has been doing a good job over the last 5000 years.
We want interest-free mortgages, no income tax, no poverty. We want abundance, good will, a cultural rebirth, fairness and an end to Plutocracy.
Kill Usury!
Except that's not true.
Would you agree that some sort of temporary financing arrangement is necessary to a lot of business ventures? How would you suggest replacing the function that banks play in that with something that someone will feel motivated to make loans?There was banking before they charged interest on loans. You get money from profit not though interest shell games.
QuoteExcept that's not true.
Yes it is. Sorry you cant just make money out of thin air and charge people for it. Like the Federal reserve does.
When you do this its worth a little less every time.
The net result of this little game is there simply is no way to pay off the debt. Its impossible, there isn't enough money in circulation.
Its a perfect system of slavery. The result of the federal reserve ( a private corporation btw). None of the debt is actually real.
There was banking before they charged interest on loans. You get money from profit not though interest shell games.
You get a partner in the business or venture or whatever until you pay off the loan.
That's not a problem; if people wanted to pay off all the debts, then they could pay off some, and then that money would eventually make its way back around so they could pay off more, and keep going until it's all paid off.No. You don't understand. There is no way to pay off the debt its impossible. Its not just a matter of saving or investing.The money simply isn't there. Its the entire point of the scam.
The thing is, usually when people borrow money it's to get something they couldn't afford otherwise, and they would rather use any money they get to get more such things than to pay off their debt.
What constitutes "real" debt?Debt thats not the result of fraud.
QuoteThat's not a problem; if people wanted to pay off all the debts, then they could pay off some, and then that money would eventually make its way back around so they could pay off more, and keep going until it's all paid off.No. You don't understand. There is no way to pay off the debt its impossible. Its not just a matter of saving or investing.The money simply isn't there. Its the entire point of the scam.
The thing is, usually when people borrow money it's to get something they couldn't afford otherwise, and they would rather use any money they get to get more such things than to pay off their debt.
Does anyone ever wonder why one or two percent of the population owns pretty much everything?
Does anyone really think they do this honestly?
QuoteWhat constitutes "real" debt?Debt thats not the result of fraud.