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.
.For the most part these are drug addicts that do not belong on the streets
If they camp on the street arrest them snd perform drug tests
If they are clean then try to locate housing and a job
But if they are on drugs send them to a rehab camp far away in the wilderness for at least 6 months
.
The producers of this video pointed out, at 50:30, that Western Washington State has a perfect facility just standing empty, waiting, on an island in Puget Sound, surrounded by deep water and fast currents.
Ready to use for the purpose of housing and rehabbing homeless junkies.
Lives and cities could be saved, but what does WA do? Sit there with their heads up their asses.
.
.Thats a good idea
If only people would not use drugs in the first place
But that horse has left the barn
As per what forkup and I discussed earlier, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion...
Thoughts.
.So you mean I can drive out to Oregon, sleep in my car for the night once I cross state lines, next morning declare "I live here now" and go down to the office to start collecting $1000 a month? Sounds like I could use a vacation. Or is it a business trip?
I would support spending $100,000 per month on every homeless person if
But once again, stupid liberals want to throw around half baked non-plans with no more forethought than a foreskin barbell piercing.
- It's done intelligently.
- It'd done effectively.
- It's done responsibly.
In effect a state subsidy for the heroin and meth tradeAs per what forkup and I discussed earlier, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion...
Thoughts.
As per what forkup and I discussed earlier, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion...
Thoughts.
.
"Intelligent", "effective" and "responsible" are always very subjective concepts.
I would never vote for anyone who used these terms without objectively defining very specific goals.
How is giving money people with addiction issues humane? Homelessness will never totally disappear, there are those that prefer that way, I volunteered to help get people off the streets, some would rather live in the streets, some are addicts with no real reason to get sober, some are hard workers down on their luck, some are unmotivated to better themselves, some refuse to conform to social constructs, some are mentally ill, so many reasons why they are there, throwing them money will no solve the issue, why do you think it would?I think a basic income should be required and is an issue of human rights. Homelessness and hunger should be outlawed.
Our society could use robots and A.i to make things and to provide for the population. We all know that this tech will likely to exactly this and we will be forced to develop such a system. Lets make it humane.
Does it get deposited in their bank accounts (LOL) or do they just walk up to a window and get a thousand dollars cash each month to walk around with? As usual with the left, instead of working on the root causes of a problem, they just throw money at it, leaving the root causes still in place. With rents very high right now is this going to encourage landlords to rent to these people?As per what forkup and I discussed earlier, I thought this would be a good subject for discussion...
Thoughts.
The money would be better spent building public facilities - showers and toilets - than giving it directly.Where do they shower? Where do they go #2? Toilet paper? Where does it go? We know in SF bathroom usage is a major priblem. There are no public toilets.
How is giving money people with addiction issues humane? Homelessness will never totally disappear, there are those that prefer that way, I volunteered to help get people off the streets, some would rather live in the streets, some are addicts with no real reason to get sober, some are hard workers down on their luck, some are unmotivated to better themselves, some refuse to conform to social constructs, some are mentally ill, so many reasons why they are there, throwing them money will no solve the issue, why do you think it would?
I’m on the road so forgive my short reply…I’ll get into more detail tomorrow…This is a good one to start with. Thanks.
I will first parse what is in the article. Because it provides a context and a cautionary tale.
The headline is a bit click baity. Something that probably drew you to it. "Oregon Bill would give homeless people 1000 dollars a month to spend without restrictions." That sounds like a terrible idea to anyone with a lick of common sense. This would include me. Since the first thing that pops in my head is homeless drug addicts using taxpayers' money to buy booze or drugs.
The thing is though when you actually read the article some context emerges that puts it in a different light.
People’s Housing Assistance Fund Demonstration Program to give 12 monthly thousand-dollar payments to those suffering from homelessness or who are on the brink of becoming homeless.
This says. It's a demonstration program. Meaning the government is studying if this works for getting people of the streets or prevent them from having to go on the streets. It also limits the assistance in time, meaning it's not a blank check.
The legislation would also require the Portland State University Homelessness Research and Action Collaborative to study how effective the long-term cash assistance program would be across different demographics and household populations, as well as consider other circumstantial elements, such as domestic violence.
This establishes a research institute tasked with finding out if the program has any success.
It is perfectly legit to question if this is a good way to spend public funds. We probably will never achieve a consensus on this considering both our ideologies.
I personally think that letting the government assist homeless people or people about to become homeless for a short time, so they can get back on their feet is an idea that is worth trying. Providing it is coupled with a way to carefully monitor it. So they can determine if it has success in certain demographics. This is important because it might be successful in some areas but be terrible in others. It might for instance have a marked effect in preventing people sliding into homelessness but have absolutely no effect in getting people out of homelessness. (I'm giving this opinion specifically, so you can address it if you want, and we can continue this premise if you think we can form a consensus on this point?)
What we might be able to agree on is that homelessness is a problem and that we need to figure out if there's anything we can do about it as a society. Is this something we can both agree on?
I'm not going anywhere, and unlike other times this actually feels like having an actual conversation, so it'll be worth the wait so take all the time you need.I’m on the road so forgive my short reply…I’ll get into more detail tomorrow…
You have some reasonable, and good points here, but like I said I will expand tomorrow, I promise…
I think a basic income should be required and is an issue of human rights. Homelessness and hunger should be outlawed.
Maybe Portland's drug tweakers will stop stealing everything in sight.
Ha, yeah give them $1000 and they will kill each other off over it.And these homeless will start stealing from each other. Violent and criminal homeless would start to rob those defenseless homeless for the money they know they have from the government at the first of the month.
One of the reasons many of these homeless don't take advantage of shelters is because they require you can't smoke, can't be intoxicated, and not be violent. So they'd sooner sleep out in the cold streets than to adhere to those regulations.
Years ago I was watching a homeless expert. She claimed the worst thing one could possibly do for these people is hand them cash. Instead she said, if you want to give them anything, give them gift cards particularly for fast food restaurants.
