Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's funny to you of course - that's all you have now.
They will be in facilities soon- they don't have to care if they don't want to.
You also said that Donald Trump would never be president- never.
You owe me for giving you a chance to type a couple more of your numbnutsty posts
Heck you owe everyone
Well yes, TC! Thank you so very much! As I have said many times before: your extraordinary erudition and intellectual analyses are always stunningly enlightening. ... Your command of the topics is deeply, ah, unique!
Well is wasting millions of dollars really doing anything, Tulemutt? I just see the encampments moving from sidewalk to sidewalk, never actually disappearing. That's why I'm in favor of trying something different.
The money as spent now is simply bandaging wounds, yep ... not preventing the injuries. Largely inefficient. But as long as our society refuses to address root issues, bandaids are better than doing nothing. The wounds left unattended are worse than what we have now.
That said, not sure why you seem to think the programs in process now are the same over decades past. New assessments and programs are made ongoing. Some aren’t very productive. Some have made improvements in lives. Housing First programs have been the most successful and cost effective in dealing with the worst of the chronics, for example.
But, ultimately, society has to address root economics and psychologies in ways not being done now ... or it all will continue to worsen and cost of band-aids will continue to rise inefficiently.
The final solution will be as a Basic Income Guarantee program for everyone. Rich and poor will get equal checks monthly sufficient to survive on minimally. Paid for primarily by eliminating current welfare spending.
The money as spent now is simply bandaging wounds, yep ... not preventing the injuries. Largely inefficient. But as long as our society refuses to address root issues, bandaids are better than doing nothing. The wounds left unattended are worse than what we have now.
That said, not sure why you seem to think the programs in process now are the same over decades past. New assessments and programs are made ongoing. Some aren’t very productive. Some have made improvements in lives. Housing First programs have been the most successful and cost effective in dealing with the worst of the chronics, for example.
But, ultimately, society has to address root economics and psychologies in ways not being done now ... or it all will continue to worsen and cost of band-aids will continue to rise inefficiently.
The final solution will be as a Basic Income Guarantee program for everyone. Rich and poor will get equal checks monthly sufficient to survive on minimally. Paid for primarily by eliminating current welfare spending.
I'm OK with building them cost efficient TEMPORARY housing (maybe for a year), but in a different area where there's more space that's cheaper to build on.
I'm against any sort of Guaranteed Basic Income and in favor of just less taxes so people can keep more of the money they work hard to earn. I realize that's something we will never see eye to eye on.
The money as spent now is simply bandaging wounds, yep ... not preventing the injuries. Largely inefficient. But as long as our society refuses to address root issues, bandaids are better than doing nothing. The wounds left unattended are worse than what we have now.
That said, not sure why you seem to think the programs in process now are the same over decades past. New assessments and programs are made ongoing. Some aren’t very productive. Some have made improvements in lives. Housing First programs have been the most successful and cost effective in dealing with the worst of the chronics, for example.
But, ultimately, society has to address root economics and psychologies in ways not being done now ... or it all will continue to worsen and cost of band-aids will continue to rise inefficiently.
The final solution will be as a Basic Income Guarantee program for everyone. Rich and poor will get equal checks monthly sufficient to survive on minimally. Paid for primarily by eliminating current welfare spending.
If you think for a second that current welfare spending will be eliminated with the advent of Basic Income, then you are seriously delusional. A lot of people will spend their welfare checks quite easily, and if they get a medical emergency you can be sure the same politicians who brought Basic Income into effect will be more than happy to supplement their Basic Income to help them. Similarly, if an addict ends out on the street because his Basic Income check doesn't cover the cost of a heroin addiction, you can be sure these politicians will continue to want to throw money at the problem. Cash payments won't stop skyrocketing medical costs or the consequences of addiction, or the reckless spending habits of a segment of the population.
You might say then, but "medicare for all" will solve a lot of the above problems. But then it's not solely Basic Income we're talking about, but also free health care for all. This will bankrupt the US... which to be honest might very well happen anyhow. Both parties now seem intent on increasing the national debt as much as possible. Once the US govt defaults the resulting economic catastrophe will be such that the people on the street will just be left to rot.
I’d be willing to pay an extra 1% sales tax to jail all the addicts. Instead the city increases tax to give them needles.
As far as I know addiction is not a criminal offense, if it were there would be tens of millions of alcoholics and cigarette smokers doing time next to the junkies
I'm OK with building them cost efficient TEMPORARY housing (maybe for a year), but in a different area where there's more space that's cheaper to build on.
Except that no one who makes those decisions gives a hoot about what you are ok with. And you can't force the homeless to move to another area no matter how badly you want to put them on a barge floating around the pacific it just isn't going to happen.
If you think for a second that current welfare spending will be eliminated with the advent of Basic Income, then you are seriously delusional. A lot of people will spend their welfare checks quite easily, and if they get a medical emergency you can be sure the same politicians who brought Basic Income into effect will be more than happy to supplement their Basic Income to help them. Similarly, if an addict ends out on the street because his Basic Income check doesn't cover the cost of a heroin addiction, you can be sure these politicians will continue to want to throw money at the problem. Cash payments won't stop skyrocketing medical costs or the consequences of addiction, or the reckless spending habits of a segment of the population.
You might say then, but "medicare for all" will solve a lot of the above problems. But then it's not solely Basic Income we're talking about, but also free health care for all. This will bankrupt the US... which to be honest might very well happen anyhow. Both parties now seem intent on increasing the national debt as much as possible. Once the US govt defaults the resulting economic catastrophe will be such that the people on the street will just be left to rot.
What does a medical emergency have to to with welfare or with a guaranteed income? People on welfare have their medical care covered by medicaid, they don't get extra cash because they are ill, and it would be the same with a guaranteed income, people getting $900 or $1000 a month would not be expected to pay for their health care out of that.
Why not talk about just replacing two programs with a guaranteed basic income, TANF (welfare cash) and SNAP (food stamps) I'm going to give you a real life example of how doling out benefits rather than just giving people cash provides a perverse incentive for recipients to sell their SNAP benefits.
An adult with two children receives $379 in welfare cash in Nevada, they also get around $530 in SNAP benefits for a total of around $900. I know rent is higher now, but 4 years ago you could rent a monthly motel room for around $550, clearly a $379 cash benefit won't cover that, they need an additional $171 to pay rent so the parent sells $342 in SNAP benefits (at 50 cents on the dollar) in order to make up that deficit leaving them with $187 for food and incidentals.
If they had received a basic income of $900 a month, after paying $550 in rent the family would have $359 left for food and incidentals. The only one who benefited from micromanagement of doling out benefits are the scoundrels who buy the food stamps from the poor.
If people are going to squander their money they will do so in spite of any controls put in place by the government. There is no going back for seconds, if you can't manage your money and your kids suffer as a result eventually someone will call CPS and they will be taken from you.
What does a medical emergency have to to with welfare or with a guaranteed income? People on welfare have their medical care covered by medicaid, they don't get extra cash because they are ill, and it would be the same with a guaranteed income, people getting $900 or $1000 a month would not be expected to pay for their health care out of that.
Why not talk about just replacing two programs with a guaranteed basic income, TANF (welfare cash) and SNAP (food stamps) I'm going to give you a real life example of how doling out benefits rather than just giving people cash provides a perverse incentive for recipients to sell their SNAP benefits.
An adult with two children receives $379 in welfare cash in Nevada, they also get around $530 in SNAP benefits for a total of around $900. I know rent is higher now, but 4 years ago you could rent a monthly motel room for around $550, clearly a $379 cash benefit won't cover that, they need an additional $171 to pay rent so the parent sells $342 in SNAP benefits (at 50 cents on the dollar) in order to make up that deficit leaving them with $187 for food and incidentals.
If they had received a basic income of $900 a month, after paying $550 in rent the family would have $359 left for food and incidentals. The only one who benefited from micromanagement of doling out benefits are the scoundrels who buy the food stamps from the poor.
If people are going to squander their money they will do so in spite of any controls put in place by the government. There is no going back for seconds, if you can't manage your money and your kids suffer as a result eventually someone will call CPS and they will be taken from you.
Yes ... and what Ghengis doesn’t grasp is that anyone who is incapable of controlling their check can/will have it withheld and applied for them to basics by authorities ... doesn’t take much thought to figure these things out ... but then some folks just aren’t inclinded to think past their preconceived biases and notions.
What does a medical emergency have to to with welfare or with a guaranteed income? People on welfare have their medical care covered by medicaid, they don't get extra cash because they are ill, and it would be the same with a guaranteed income, people getting $900 or $1000 a month would not be expected to pay for their health care out of that.
Why not talk about just replacing two programs with a guaranteed basic income, TANF (welfare cash) and SNAP (food stamps) I'm going to give you a real life example of how doling out benefits rather than just giving people cash provides a perverse incentive for recipients to sell their SNAP benefits.
An adult with two children receives $379 in welfare cash in Nevada, they also get around $530 in SNAP benefits for a total of around $900. I know rent is higher now, but 4 years ago you could rent a monthly motel room for around $550, clearly a $379 cash benefit won't cover that, they need an additional $171 to pay rent so the parent sells $342 in SNAP benefits (at 50 cents on the dollar) in order to make up that deficit leaving them with $187 for food and incidentals.
If they had received a basic income of $900 a month, after paying $550 in rent the family would have $359 left for food and incidentals. The only one who benefited from micromanagement of doling out benefits are the scoundrels who buy the food stamps from the poor.
If people are going to squander their money they will do so in spite of any controls put in place by the government. There is no going back for seconds, if you can't manage your money and your kids suffer as a result eventually someone will call CPS and they will be taken from you.
What you are describing is more reasonable... people who are already receiving government money having the disbursement process simplified. Basic income in the form it is usually described is just a single lump sum cash payment, the same amount for everyone, and then no other benefits. So some people will not get enough for their needs and others too much. Simplifying government programs as you're describing it is a different idea... decreasing the bureaucracy can be done in an intelligent way that saves money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
