The bum's bill of rights (Sacramento, Kennedy: buying, living in, professionals)

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Since 1950, the number of (official) poor as a percentage of population was approximately 30%. From then until 1968, the figure dropped steadily, to about 13%. But then, right in the heart of the Great Society years, when more money than ever was being spent to decrease poverty even faster, the trend line flattened. After ten more years marked by ever-increasing outlays, the percentage of poor in our population had dropped only to 11%. Two years later, in 1980, it was back up to 13% again. The more we spent, the less progress we made.

Those are the facts, like it or not.

Johnson was a criminal and probably one of the very worst presidents in history.
He single handedly did more to destroy this country than anyone, including being behind the assassination of Kennedy. So I am not sure why anyone would think being part of that circle was a feather of credibility.

Where would it be without any spending?

I can't believe I'm responding to somebody who thinks Johnson had Kennedy Killed.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

jim, this is really, truly interesting. You, and some others posting here, present a view that homelessness is a "choice" lifestyle -- one encouraged by handouts. Now I propose to you, all, that your ignorance of the issues is a "choice" as well. The information refuting every one of your points is readily available on the internet. There is help for you. But you clearly prefer to remain angry and in the dark about this problem when you could step into the light of understanding -- and help with the solutions.

C'mon nulgeo, that's not true and you know it. If someone here has said ALL homeless people are that way by choice, then yes, they are mistaken but accusing them of ignorance is just plain rude. If I've learned anything over these past 60 years, it's that life situations aren't "all or nothing."

I pose a question to you as to how one can help. Since you are well informed about it, how would you suggest a single woman "help out" other than making monetary contributions to an organization that offers aid to the homeless? Your story of helping the man with the alcohol problem was inspiring but just how did you come to meet this man? Did you just happen to bump into him? Did you see him sleeping on a park bench and seek him out? Was he referred to you?

I don't mean for this to sound sexist but it's still easier for a man to brave the streets without worrying about being assaulted. Citing the internet is also good for reading news stories about such assaults. There are two sides to every story of homelessness. The warm and fuzzy ones, as you referred to and the other ones. (sad to say) So what's the answer, nullgeo?

[Kafkaesque]

Refer her to the Salvation Army for assistance is one way to help a homeless woman out.

[JGC97]

I asked how a single woman helps out, not helps a single woman out. But the Salvation Army is a good organization to refer people.

[Kafkaesque]

Single women can volunteer at the Salvation Army as well.

[Biz901]

As a person that's volunteered to work with and counsel the homeless, I can most assuredly attest that this legislation will only increase the homeless problem, not decrease it.

There are solutions, that are compassionate and in the interest of public welfare, but legalizing people living on the streets is not one of them...

Unfortunately, common sense and logical/deductive reasoning skills seem no where to be found in Sukromento these days.

[Kafkaesque]

Yes, one can clearly see that treating someone with a modicum of dignity would be a great draw to the Homeless lifestyle.

Free bathrooms as a great incentive for homelessness, lol.

[Biz901]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque

Yes, one can clearly see that treating someone with a modicum of dignity would be a great draw to the Homeless lifestyle.

Free bathrooms as a great incentive for homelessness, lol.

Enabling abnormal/unhealthly behavior only helps it to continue/increase...

Anyone that has a zip code in reality, or experience with substance abuse/personality disorders, knows this is bad legislation.

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by Biz901

Enabling abnormal/unhealthly behavior only helps it to continue/increase...

Anyone that has a zip code in reality, or experience with substance abuse/personality disorders, knows this is bad legislation.

Anyone that cares for the public health sees it as good legislation. Homeless spread disease and present risks that are greater than the risk someone will decide that a free bathroom is good reason to be homeless.

As for substance abuse/personality disorders the system needs an overhaul. But that is off-topic.

At what point does the increase stop? See, 100% of people are not homeless, and have not decided to embrace that lifestyle.

An uncertain percentage are homeless through choice, others through circumstances not their own fault. I'm not going to toss them all out due to the small percentage who won't comply or don't want to seek out charitable organizations that provide housing.

And since homelessness definitely exists, I'd like to lessen the health risks to the rest of the community.

At what point do you expect those with substance abuse problems/personality disorders to make rational choices in any case?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Since 1950, the number of (official) poor as a percentage of population was approximately 30%. From then until 1968, the figure dropped steadily, to about 13%. But then, right in the heart of the Great Society years, when more money than ever was being spent to decrease poverty even faster, the trend line flattened. After ten more years marked by ever-increasing outlays, the percentage of poor in our population had dropped only to 11%. Two years later, in 1980, it was back up to 13% again. The more we spent, the less progress we made.

Those are the facts, like it or not.

Johnson was a criminal and probably one of the very worst presidents in history.
He single handedly did more to destroy this country than anyone, including being behind the assassination of Kennedy. So I am not sure why anyone would think being part of that circle was a feather of credibility.

jim, you are a remarkable individual ... but aren't you the one who just a few posts back also made accusatory statements about "correlation and causation"? And aren't you also the

"What you "consider" or "feel" is irrelevant to facts."

guy? And the

Given the opportunity they will take any handout and live their lives in squalor and in most cases in a drunken or drugged state.
They do this for the same reason a dog licks his balls…

guy? And the

sh*t bums lying in their own vomit on public sidewalks is a fairly new phenomena. It is phenomena that did not exist prior to the 70's, and the escalation of the welfare state.

Tch. Very prosaic! And now the "Johnson killed Kennedy" guy! My my my ... give it a rest.

The "feather of credibility" lies in having been involved in the advancement of human rights in a country founded on those principles -- but which country had a terrible stain on its self-righteousness from its history with slavery and tacitly apartheid discrimination for even a hundred years after slavery was abolished.

To grasp the correlations between poverty and welfare you need to study the history of our nation in war and industry -- and at what junctures war brought prosperity to whom and then what followed -- and especially the rise of the banking / financial investment and management society -- and what that has done to both the working AND middle classes -- and of course taxation gifts and blunders. While you are looking at all that, DO look at California's embarrassing son Ronnie R (speaking of the nation's worst president ever doing more to put America on a path to self-destruction) ... and as a fun excursion read about how he willfully created the fiction of the "welfare queen" ... which, speaking of civil rights, set us back decades in respecting human dignity.

The most famous myth about welfare may be the one begun by Ronald Reagan on the 1976 campaign trail: the story of a woman from Chicago's South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud. "She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names." Many investigative reporters tried to track down this "Welfare Queen". She didn't exist. David Zucchino, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, spent a year with two welfare mothers in Philadelphia and wrote a book comparing the image to the reality in The Myth of the Welfare Queen. (reprinted in 1999)

Poverty is on the rise, jim, because wealth is reasserting total control at the very tippy top. We are, internationally, re-entering the culture of feudalism. And you are being used like a tool