Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you really think there is nowhere in this country where they can be housed? You continually come up with new and ignorant excuses to continue the status quo.And do you want this housing next door to where you live? How much are you willing to pay for this housing? After all, with housing, you will also be responsible for paying for their utilities as well, perhaps paying for their food on top of it.
Okay, let's do that. Did we solve the root problem?
As did I in post #1, which you dismissed in favor of your own cherry picked facts. So, right back at you.
CA is Number One in the number of homeless people.What I've said all along and this article is the proof. And, it's not an article from Fox News. It is an article from the Atlantic, which leans left. Liberals have caused their very own problem. Same holds true with income inequality and a whole slew of other things.
The real cause of California’s homelessness crisis
It should be embarrassing to California officials that while their state deals with a seemingly intractable homelessness crisis, red states don’t have similar problems.www.yahoo.com
That's a damn lieLots of people are homeless by choice. Any form of order or structure is anathema to them. Confusion is order, order is confusion to them.
That's a damn lie
A lot of homeless choose homelessness because it is the lesser of 2 evils, at least to them.
And 72% of homeless women are homeless due to domestic violence. They'd rather live that way than with violence...
Surely you cannot blame them?
Well, I think a lot of people have compassion for the homeless and want to help but allowing a stranger to live with you is asking too much. It is not bc they are homeless, it is because people are afraid of strangers and they should be.I was a stranger and you took me not in. In where? Into a homeless shelter? Is that what Jesus was referring to? You didn't drop me off at the El Camino Homeless Mission? He said "you didn't let me into your home". I don't have enough love to let the homeless stay in my home but I can have my government make sure people are adequately housed and not homeless. What's "adequate"? Common sense. It's pretty self-evident what is "adequate", it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. This isn't rocket science. Housing with a bathroom, at least a small kitchen with a simple fridge, a bed, AC.
Both Republicans and Democrats are the source of the problem, due to incompetence and/or indifference.
Default position: The poor are always with you (us).Yeah that works. Yet somehow the problem gets no better.
We need to build facilities to sequester drug addicts (involuntary detainment). This kills three birds with one stone,Well, I think a lot of people have compassion for the homeless and want to help but allowing a stranger to live with you is asking too much. It is not bc they are homeless, it is because people are afraid of strangers and they should be.
That said, I agree w/ your solutions. I never could u/stand why the govt always seems to have money to pay for studies of fruit flies and other horse**** but somehow they can never figure out how to build low income housing. Even a one room studio with a bathroom down the hall shared by others is far better than what we have now...
There are always those who give the homeless or poor a bad name. But there are decent homeless people, who just cannot afford the high rent. If someone breaks the law, that someone should be disciplined. But you can't lump all poor and homeless people in one category and then decide that since thye are all, as you say, dirty and lawless and etc.. we should do thus and so for--or against-- "the homeless"We both totally agree. I'm just pointing out to you that the party you support doesn't agree with us. They try to score points with their voters by destroying nice areas in the name of equity. I live in the burbs. I have Section 8 right next door. Every tenant there has been there was nothing but a problem. They are noisy, have zero consideration for working people, and are generally dirty and have even been violent on a few occasions. They simply don't belong here. The police have been next door about a dozen times in the last five or six years because of all the problems they bring with them.
Default position: The poor are always with you (us).
There are always those who give the homeless or poor a bad name. But there are decent homeless people, who just cannot afford the high rent. If someone breaks the law, that someone should be disciplined. But you can't lump all poor and homeless people in one category and then decide that since thye are all, as you say, dirty and lawless and etc.. we should do thus and so for--or against-- "the homeless"
They are no more all the same as a group as are White conservative homeowners all the same
I agree and make the sale and distribution of hard-drugs a capital crime. Send drug dealers to the firing squad or gallows. Decriminalize and help the addicts, kill the dealers. Make it extremely dangerous for dealers, to the point that they won't want to risk getting caught selling drugs and being executed.We need to build facilities to sequester drug addicts (involuntary detainment). This kills three birds with one stone,
Provides shelter for addicts.
Interrupts their drug use.
Deprives dealers (and cartels) of income.
Do you really think there is nowhere in this country where they can be housed? You continually come up with new and ignorant excuses to continue the status quo.
Whatever it costs is what is required. You have no objections to billionaires and big corporations getting whatever they want. Why object to this?
The trickle-down doesn't trickle.I wasn't objecting, just asking questions. What's with this hangup of yours with corporations and billionaires anyway? These are the people that create our jobs. These are the people that nearly entirely support our federal government. If government gives them a break by taking less of the money they created, don't you think they're worth it?
There was no added comment on how not all are like that.This exemplifies why we can't get anything done. A poster notes that a lot of people are homeless because they aren't able to live in a structured environment. You call that a lie. It is not. There are a lot of people this way.
Does that mean they are saying all are that way? No. By them saying what they say does that mean that many women are not homeless over domestic abuse issues? No.
There was no added comment on how not all are like that.
Your claim that the rich are the only ones who support the federal government is false. Many of them do everything possible not to pay taxes and hence don't. It's the working-class that supports the federal government with their taxes and labor, not a few wealthy people who do everything possible to reduce, if not eliminate their taxes.
The government has to bail out the capitalists every few years, using public funds. They privatize the profits and make the losses public. The average working-class person ends up paying the price, while the rich cash in.
The golden age of the US economy was in the 1950s and 60s. At that time the highest tax bracket was 90%. Sure there were tax loops and ways to reduce taxes, but nonetheless, the corporations, the rich, paid more, and workers paid less. The working-class (95% of the population) is the backbone of our economy, not the rich.
The capitalists need workers more than workers need capitalists. The working-class could organize production without wealthy employers.
The poor and homeless can found nearly everywhere. True, Jesus was referring to the ointment/oil but was also pointing out the fact that we will always have the poor among us as an ever-present social class. The names may change but the class remains.He said that to his disciples in the 1st century when Judas was complaining that the oil could be sold and the money used to feed the poor. Some "Christians" cite this verse to support their indifference to the needs of the poor or any effort that attempts to reduce or eliminate poverty. Supposedly, since Jesus told his disciples that the poor would always exist within a certain context, that means that we shouldn't make an effort to reduce or eliminate poverty. It's good to have people who are impoverished, living in abject poverty, because it supposedly confirms God's word.
Jesus spoke those words to make the point that the oil should be dedicated to its intended purpose and that the poor whom Judas was pretending to care about, would be present in the future for him and the other disciples, to serve. They wouldn't be taking anything away from the poor by dedicating the oil to its original intended purpose. People take a comment that was made by Jesus to make a point within a certain context, at a certain time, for a certain purpose, then misapply it to every age, location, circumstance, making Jesus say what he didn't intend.
To those who want to pretend that this means that the poor will always exist in every age, I ask you, does it say that the poor will exist in every location on earth? Every country will be full of impoverished people? America has to have homeless people because Jesus wants there to be homeless people? Jesus expects people to open the doors of their homes and let the homeless in:
Mat 25:42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Master, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life everlasting.
It doesn't make any sense for you to cite that now, as if it proves anything. It's a good policy to reduce and even eliminate poverty whenever we can. Material scarcity creates an immense amount of pain and suffering in the world. How can a Christian promote that?
In my city Section 8 comes with way too many regulations. Most landlords including myself reject the program. We have always had a strong rental market here and don't need to accept subsidized renters.I was not talking about the homeless. We kind of drifted off to a similar subject. With section 8 you have to have some sort of income as they only provide vouchers. The problem is the vouchers are too large that it allows them to bed down in the suburbs and destroy those places. Like I said, I haven't had a Section 8 person live there that wasn't a problem.
I've put into SS $72,000 (my contribution) and have gotten back over $350,000 with much more to come.Yes, it's the rich that does support our federal government. The top 20% of working people will pay 87% of all collected income taxes. In that figure, the top 1% pay 40%. So yes, it's the wealthy that supports nearly our entire federal government.
Payroll tax most people get back at the end of their life. If you live the average US lifespan, you will get all your SS money back and more, all your Medicare money back and more, if you become disabled depending on the age of disability, you will get all your FICA taxes back and more. Other payroll taxes go to support the services your local governments pay for such as street lights, emergency services, police, garbage pickup and so on.
If we took all our poor and put them on an island somewhere, nobody would miss them. In fact our country would be better off without them. Take all our wealthy and do the same, our country collapses.
