Liberals Cause Their Own Homeless Problem

[Red Front]

The primary cause of homelessness is mental health driven by drug addiction

Street bums often refuse help if it means they have to give up drugs

Lack of cheap housing is a problem for some who work in places with a high cost of living

Relaxing the impediments to affordable housing by government would help a few people

But not enough to make a noticeable difference

I addressed everything you said but you completely ignored it. You read a few lines and started firing.

 

[Woodznutz]

Kicking the homeless out of your Republican/conservative-run city, by making conditions extremely difficult for them by criminalizing all of their activities and needs (sleeping in the park, panhandling, not expanding Medicaid, defunding social services for the poor, as Republicans often do .etc), only shifts the problem to another city, county or state.

What's the solution for homeless people? Housing. That's #1. Housing. You house them. Homeless shelters don't qualify as housing. That's a cop-out that actually ensures that people don't get the help they need, due to the horrible conditions found in most shelters. I know I work with the homeless and visit homeless shelters on a regular basis.

The second greatest need of the homeless is providing them, even forcing them if necessary, with rehab or some type of mental health care. Most of them need it, so you provide it, and if that entails forcing them into it, then you pass the required legislation, that will allow you to do that. You're going to have to adjudicate the homeless, "institutionalizing" them (i.e. psyche-ward/drug rehab) when warranted under the law.

That way the likelihood of the person you're housing and providing social services to, benefiting from those services, successfully meeting their objective, is much more likely if not ensured. This isn't nuclear physics or rocket science.

Thirdly, decriminalize drug addiction.

I would also add, making the sell of narcotics i.e. drug dealing, a capital crime. But that would probably be the most difficult law to pass and it's not necessary to eliminate homelessness. It would greatly reduce crime and addiction. Why am I so harsh on the dealers? Because working with the homeless, I see firsthand, the destructive consequences of drug addiction. Whoever is selling deadly poison to the public should go to the gallows or stand before a firing squad (I don't equate alcohol or Marijuana, to crack, meth, or street heroin and fentanyl).

Those social services should include, healthcare, with Medicaid or Medicare, and case management through social workers who will meet with them regularly, to connect them to the services that they need. Like Methadone treatment if they need it, drug counseling, local AA or NA meetings, food stamps, transit fare, vocational-job training, employment opportunities.etc. That's the way to get people out of homelessness permenantly.

Not to do the above is to continue with the homelessness and pay more, financially, socially.etc. To do nothing about the homeless situation is more expensive. This isn't something that we can sweep under the rug and ignore. We need to take the bull by the horns and resolve it. Both Republicans and Democrats, aren't doing what we need to do.

Extremely expensive.​

Getting the hard-core addicts off the streets effectively eliminates the dealers, at no extra cost. Maintaining the laws against use will help enable agencies to 'force' addicts into treatment. Many are now sentenced by Judges into 'involuntary' rehab.

 

[okfine]

My ma is told me she knew of folks that lived in holes in the ground, that was the 1950s.

She was telling you the truth. My Dad told me the same thing.

 

[Red Front]

I would agree with you except the financial part. I was a child in the 60's and I can tell you financially, we never had it better. Hell, we create at least one new millionaire every day in lotteries alone. Of course a millionaire today is not like a millionaire in the 60's. There were few and far between back then.

When I thank God for what I have, it's family and being born in the United States of America. Those are the two top blessings I was gifted with. My family is close and this country is the greatest in the world in spite of all our problems.

But I agree with you the US has no choice but to split up into at least two countries. As the left keeps going further left and the right keeps leaning more and more towards constitutionalism, there is no longer any middle-ground. The longer we stay together, the more miserable we will be.

That's not how a successful economy is measured. My maternal grandfather migrated here from Cuba in his late 40s, in 1961, and got a job at Bertram Yachts in Miami, Florida. He supported my grandmother, mother and siblings, with that one blue-collar job, and in 1965, after only four years of working and paying rent, he purchased a house in South Miami, in cash. Without a bank loan or mortgage. He paid it in cash.

​

 

[Woodznutz]

That's not how a successful economy is measured. My maternal grandfather migrated here from Cuba in his late 40s, in 1961, and got a job at Bertram Yachts in Miami, Florida. He supported my grandmother, mother and siblings, with that one blue-collar job, and in 1965, after only four years of working and paying rent, he purchased a house in South Miami, in cash. Without a bank loan or mortgage. He paid it in cash.

View attachment 740393

View attachment 740395


View attachment 740391



View attachment 740396




​

The trick is that once it trickles down don't let it trickle back up.

 

[Red Front]

The trick is that once it trickles down don't let it trickle back up.

It doesn't really trickle down. The "trickle-down" doesn't trickle. Most if not all of the money remains at the top.

 

[Independent thinker]

No one goes to Mississippi because it's a shit hole. Everyone is dirt poor there except the elite ChristoMAGA who turned it into a hole.

Homeless don't travel. That's why they are homeless.

 

[Independent thinker]

This is the dumbest think I've ever read. There is no shortage of HOUSING in California. There is a shortage of housing which people can afford. BECAUSE THEIR JOBS DON'T PAY ENOUGH MONEY TO COVER THE RENTS.

The problem isn't the cost of construction, the problem is the low wages being paid working Americans.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, liberal polices have made housing and everything else so unaffordable that it increases homelessness.

 

[Independent thinker]

Supposedly, but there is a paywall and I'm not paying to see it. Have you read it?

Maybe you could put up some supporting evidence that the original story didn't come from the Atlantic or that it was altered from what the Atlantic reported. I mean, surely the Atlantic would file legal charges if any of those happened.

 

[okfine]

Maybe you could put up some supporting evidence that the original story didn't come from the Atlantic or that it was altered from what the Atlantic reported. I mean, surely the Atlantic would file legal charges if any of those happened.

Damn. It's your OP. Post the fucking article or STFU.

 

[Woodznutz]

It doesn't really trickle down. The "trickle-down" doesn't trickle. Most if not all of the money remains at the top.

It doesn't stay at the top. It is invested in order to make more money. That's when it 'trickles down' to the common man. Unfortunately, the money is quickly returned to the top, with interest.

 

[Red Front]

It doesn't stay at the top. It is invested in order to make more money. That's when it 'trickles down' to the common man.

Rubish gobbledygook, that's not what occurs and that's why the working-class in this country has been gutted like a fish. The tax cuts and benefits are saved or used to buy back stocks, and expand investment portfolios without hiring more employees, raising salaries, improving work conditions, investing in infrastructure..etc. The money remains in the hands of the wealthy as is apparent by the conditions in which the working class finds itself today. You as a "late-bloomer", new elderly member of the wealthy class will deny it but the facts don't agree with your claims.

Supply-side economics doesn't work, it's essentially de-industrialized America, lowered wages and benefits for the average blue-collar worker and greatly increased the cost of living across the board. Sitting up there in your new palace and social status, you're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance and cynicism. The grumpy 80-year-old, misanthropic cynic who just admitted a few posts ago that he hates the poor and doesn't give a crap about them.

 

[Independent thinker]

Damn. It's your OP. Post the fucking article or STFU.

I posted. You will only accept your own facts. Go back to post #1.

 

[okfine]

I posted. You will only accept your own facts. Go back to post #1.

You didn't post the Atlantic article, dummy.

 

[Red Front]

I posted. You will only accept your own facts. Go back to post #1.

The article makes claims without presenting any evidence or factoring in the other contributors to the homeless problem. Incompetence and indifference on this issue, are found in both parties. There isn't one party that is responsible for the homeless epidemic. Both are guilty.

 

[Red Front]

You didn't post the Atlantic article, dummy.

He's a link warrior.

 

[Woodznutz]

Rubish gobbledygook, that's not what occurs and that's why the working-class in this country has been gutted like a fish. The tax cuts and benefits are saved or used to buy back stocks, and expand investment portfolios without hiring more employees, raising salaries, improving work conditions, investing in infrastructure..etc. The money remains in the hands of the wealthy as is apparent by the conditions in which the working class finds itself today. You as a "late-bloomer", new elderly member of the wealthy class will deny it but the facts don't agree with your claims.

Supply-side economics doesn't work, it's essentially de-industrialized America, lowered wages and benefits for the average blue-collar worker and greatly increased the cost of living across the board. Sitting up there in your new palace and social status, you're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance and cynicism. The grumpy 80-year-old, misanthropic cynic who just admitted a few posts ago that he hates the poor and doesn't give a crap about them.

What you've described is the usual circulation of money throughout an economy. Investments are made, money is spent, people are paid, people spend, and so on. Nothing new here, except maybe some 'new money' is introduced into the process, and that's usually a good thing.

You're the one who sounds cynical and disillusioned. When the wage earner has his pay in hand it's his to do with what he chooses.

Also, I have more years to reflect on than most and can honestly report that there were always opportunities to prosper, if one was prepared to take advantage of them.

 

[Independent thinker]

You didn't post the Atlantic article, dummy.

I posted what I posted. You just refuse to accept it. If I were to post it from the Atlantic, word for word, you would still refuse to accept it.

 

[Independent thinker]

The article makes claims without presenting any evidence or factoring in the other contributors to the homeless problem. Incompetence and indifference on this issue, are found in both parties. There isn't one party that is responsible for the homeless epidemic. Both are guilty.

So, you're saying that the high cost of housing and other inflation does not increase homelessness?

 

[okfine]

I posted what I posted. You just refuse to accept it. If I were to post it from the Atlantic, word for word, you would still refuse to accept it.

I take it the Atlantic article mirrors the article you linked to. How would anyone know if you didn't post it. What a cop out.